



mmmiii 





"Sp^^cW^ o\~^''^^ X-or^^s^-r- 

1 



CONTENTS 



1891, Feb. 23 — Memorial address of Captain J. B. For- 
aker, in honor of (jeneral W'ni. Te- 
cuniseh Sherman, Cincinnati. / 

1891, June 16 Speeches of Ex-Governor J. B. Foraker 
and 17 and Messrs. L. \V. King, Robt. Nevin, 

Asa Bushnell, Wm. McKinley, Jr., Jolm 
Sherman and Charles Foster, Repub- 
lican State Convention, Columlxis, 
Ohio. h^U^^.^'^j 

1891, Sept. 16 — Speech of Ex-Governor J. B. Foraker 
at Athens, Ohio, on State Issues, A 
Free Ballot, Silver, Tariff and Reci- 
procity. ', / 

1894, July 4 — Speech of Ex-Governor Foraker at the 

dedication of the Cuyahoga County Sol- 
diers' and Sailors' Monument. Cleve- 
land. Ohio. ^"^3 

1805, Jan. 2A — "Reciprocity." Address of Hon. J. B. 
Foraker before the Manufacturers' 
Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio. L^ 

1895, May 1 — "The Monroe Doctrine." Address of 

Hon. J. B. Foraker before the meeting 

of the Loyal Legion. Cincinnati, ( )hi(). /,3" 

1895, Sept. 10— "Questions of the Hour." Speech of 

Ex-Governor [. B. Foraker at Sjjring- 
field, Ohio. " ^ ' 

1896, Jan. 15 — Speech of Acceptance of Senator For- 

aker, before Ohio Legislature. '^^ 

1896, Feb. 12 — "The Merchant Marine." Speech of 
Hon. J. B. Foraker before the Republi- 
can Club of New York. f 7 

1896, Feb. 22 — "Foraker." Testimonal .'Souvenir by 

George Matthews, Cincinnati. -^^7 

1896, Mar. 6— Speech of Hon. J. B. Foraker at the 
Bundy Banquet, Jackson, Ohio, in re- 
sponse to the toast, "The Republican 
Party." / ^ > 



1896, June 18 — Speech of Hon. J. B. Foraker, nominat- 
ing^ for t]ie Presidency Governor Wil- 
liam AlcKinley, National Republican 
Convention, St. Louis. Mo. /<^o 

1896, June 20 — Ratification Speech of Hon. J. B. For- 
aker at Springer Hall, Cincinnati, Ohio, i ^ ii 

1896, .Vug. 15 — Speech by Senator-elect J. B. Foraker, 

on the occasion of the opening of the 
Ohio Republican Campaign at Colum- - ^ ^ 
bus, Ohio. ' 

1897. May 19— "Cuba." Speech of Hon. J. B. Foraker 

in the Senate of the United States. 

1897, Sept. 11 — Speeches of Senators }. B. Foraker and 

M. A. Hanna at Burton, Ohio. ^ ' '^'^ ^ ^ ^ 

1898, Feb. 26 — "The Oregon Senatorial Question." 

Speech of Hon. J. B. Foraker in the 
Senate of ihe United States. Z-'^-y 

1898, Aj^r. 13— "The Cul)an Question." Speech of 
Hon. J. B. Foraker in the Senate of the 
United States. ^-^3 

1898, Apr. 20— ••Cu])an AiYairs." Speech of Hon. J. B. 
Foraker in the Senate of the United 
States. 2n3~7 

18<)8, Apr. 28— "Our War with Spain— Its Justice and 
Necessity." Article in the Forum l)v 
Hon. j. B. Foraker. June. 1808. ' 7 ^^ 

1898, June 5— "Success in Politics." By j. B. Foraker. 

(From the Cliicayo filter Ocean.) 2^^0 

1898, June 13, 'Iniernational American Bank." Re- 
14 and U) marks of Hon. J. B. Foraker in the 

Senate of the United States. ^ ^y 

ISOS. June 2.=^— "Annexation of Hawaii." Remarks of 
Hon. J. B. Foraker in the Senate of 
the United States. v^%a^~~ 

1808. ( KM. 5— Speech of Ih.n. |. B. Foraker at Woos- 

ter, Ohio. J^y 

1890. Jan. ]l_"7he Power of the Government of the 
United States to Acquire, Hold and 
Govern Territory." Speech of Hon. 
J. B. Foraker in the Senate of the 
United States. ? ^^ 



1899, Jan. 19 — Supplementary remarks by Hon. J. B. 
Foraker, on the power of the (iovern- 
ment of the United States to acquire, 
hold and govern territory. ^/C^~ 

1899, Mar. 3— "Cuban Franchises." Speech of Hon. 
J. B. Foraker in tlie Senate of the 
"United States. //A^ ^ 

1899, May 11— Address of Hon. J. B. Foraker at Clyde, 
Ohio, on the occasion of the funeral 
obsequies of George Burton Meek. ///_//• 

1899, July 1— Address of Hon. J. B. Foraker, Fort 
Thomas, Ky., at unveiling of memorial 
tablets. ^ L / 

1899, July 30 — In Memoriam — Mrs. Margaret Reece 

Foraker. ^ y^ 

1899, Sept. 21— 'The Gold Plank" of the National Re- 
publican Platfqjm, 1896: Story of its 
Adoption. ^'^7 

1899, Sept. 22 — Speech of Senator Foraker at Hamil- 
ton, Ohio, Emancipation Day. \^/Z 

1899, Oct. 21 — Speech of Senator Foraker as Chair- 
man, introducing Ciov. Theodore Roose- 
velt, Music Hall, Cincinnati. Ohio. 

1899, Oct. 26 — Speech of Senator Foraker at Colum- 

. bus, Ohio. \S~^0 



Q 






/ 



MEMORIAL ADDRESS 

OF 

CAPTAIN J. B. FORAKER 



IN HONOR OF 







DELIVERED AT 

MUSIC HALL, CINCINNATI, OHIO, 
MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 23, I89I. 

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My thauks are due to the comrades who have assigned 
me the present duty. I take it up conscious of inability 
to fitly discharge it, but supported by the knowledge that 
while others would more beautifully and appropriately ex- 
press the sentiments all entertain, yet no one could speak 
for General Sherman with greater sincerity or with the 
remembrance of a more devoted attachment. 

When we consider the occasion of this meeting, there 
is a strange commingling of feeling. We have come to 
mourn, and yet not to mourn. A great personal and na- 
tional loss has overtaken us, but the character that is gone 
was so splendid in all its proportions that we can contem- 
plate it, even in the very hour of death, with scarcely any 
other feeling than that of gratification and admiration. 
Our grief is still further relieved by the thought that it did 
jiot come prematurely or unnaturally. When Lincoln fell, 



he was in the prime of lifo. His work was not done. His 
taking off was both a shocking tragedy and a disastrous 
calamity, as well as a bitter bereavement. But not so with 
General Sherman. He died in the fullness of time. His 
work was finished. He had more than lived out the allot- 
ted threescore years and ten. He had attained the highest 
honors. His fame filled the whole civilized world. For a 
quarter of a century he had been one of the most distin- 
guished men of the earth. He knew the high place he 
would hold in history, and that he would be forever en- 
shrined in the hearts and affections of his countrymen. 
Could any man lio})e by lengthened days to accomplish 
more? What more could be accomplished? He outlived 
most of his associates. He survived the beloved partner of 
all his joys and sorrows. He ran the race to the end, and 
paid the debt of nature according to nature's law. 

We are here to review the life so lived and so ended, 
to study the lessons it imparts, manifest the appreciation 
we have for his private worth and public services, and, by 
fitly honoring the rich memory he has left us, lift ourselves 
to a higher plane of patriotism and fidelity to duty. It is 
not possible within the proper limits of a single address to 
speak in detail of more than the greatest of the events with 
which General Sherman was associated. Fortunately it is 
not necessary. History has made all familiar. Let this 
thought be the explanation and excuse, if any be needed, 
for what might otherwise appear insufficiently noticed. 

His early life possesses no other interest than that 
which attaches to all great men. He was born at Lancas- 
ter in our own State, in 1820, and was sent to the military 
academy by Thomas Ewing. He was graduated from 
there with the rank of sixth in a class of forty-two, in 1840. 
He served in the regular army in South Carolina, Florida 
and California, until 1853, when the war with Mexico 



being over, aiid it being thought that the militant was 
thereafter to be nutnbered among the lost arts, he resigned 
his commission and embarked in business. For several 
years he was a banker in San Francisco, and so success- 
full}' managed the interests intrusted to his care that be 
withstood the run of the great panic that inaugurated the 
monetary disturbances that were so disastrous to the 
financial institutions of the whole country during that 
period. The prudence and ability he there displayed as a 
financier would have done credit to his distinguished 
brother, wi)0, in later years, won such imperishable honor 
as Secretary of the Treasury. Nevertheless, it is popularly 
believed that not the least of his acts of wisdom in this 
connection was quitting the business at the first opportu- 
nity. His next venture was as a lawyer, at Leavenworth, 
Kan,, where he was admitted to the bar upon the order of 
the judge, not for his knowledge of the law, but " upon 
the ground of general intelligence." The only case tried 
by him of which we have any account was one in which he 
unsuccessfully defended a client who was sued for seven- 
teen dollars, but in which, upon the suggestion of "a 
wicked partner," execution was defeated in a way the 
General's conscience did not altogether approve. He soon 
wearied of this profession, and, casting about for a more 
agreeable occupation, sought, and in 1859 was chosen to, 
the position of Superintendent of the Louisiana Military 
Academy at Baton Rouge. 

Here he found pleasant work, but it was of short dura- 
tion. He had scarcely entered upon his new duties, when 
the eleciion of Mr. Lincoln occurred. The spirit of rebel- 
lion took possession of the slave section, and in rapid suc- 
cession the States enacted ordinances of secession, tore 
down the Stars and Stripes, ran up the flags of their re- 
spective commonwealths, seized the forts and arsenals of 



the Federal Government, and committed other acts of 
treason. Looking back at ihese occurences, it seems in- 
credible that anybody could have failed to perceive that a 
great war was inevitable, and still it is not necessary to say 
to any one who can recall those days that it was almost im- 
possible to make any one believe there was really any such 
danger. At the South the impression prevailed that the 
people of the North were so absorbed in business pursuits, 
and so averse to arms, that nothing could induce tbem to 
fight, while at the North no one had an idea that such 
folly and wickedness as the violent disruption of the Union 
could be seriously contemplated. And thus it was that 
the public mind was such that scarcely any one could or 
would foresee what was coming. Sherman was one of the 
few who did. He had been an intelligent observer of 
events, and, although not then and never a partisan, a 
careful student of the political controversies and complica- 
tions of the times. He had been identified with the people 
of both sections, and thus had come to have personal 
knowledge of their differences and prejudices. And not 
only did he know the peoi)le, but he also knew their re- 
spective resources, and hence it was that he both foresaw 
the trouble and the measure of it. When we remember 
what irresolution was manifested at that time by many of 
those who had been trusted leaders, it is refreshing to 
recur to a man of clear conceptions, stalwart convictions, 
and vigorous loyalty. Sherman was such a man. While 
this one was doubting, and that one was halting, and an- 
other, cringing to the slave power, was raising constitu- 
tional objections, and trying to compromise, pacificate, and 
save trade and business, ho took his stand as irrevocably 
and as unqualifiedly as language could express it. On the 
18th day of January, 1861, a few days after the State Con- 
vention of Lousiana, that afterwards enacted the ordinance 



of secession, was convened, he wrote the following self- 
explanatory letter : 

" Louisiana State Seminary of Learning "| 

AND Military Academy, >• 

January 18, 1861. j 

" Gov. Thomas O. Moore, Baton Rouge, La. : 

"Sir — As I occupy a ^«a«-military position under the laws of the 
State, I deem it proper to acquaint you that I accepted such position when 
Louivsiana was a State in the Union, and when the motto of this Seminary 
was inserted in marble over the main door : ' By the liberality of the Gen- 
eral Government of the United States. The Union. Esto perpetua: 

" Recent events foreshadow a great change, and it becomes all men to 
choose. If Louisiana withdraws from the Federal Union, I prefer to main- . 
tain my allegiance to the Constitution as long as a fragment of it survives ; 
and my longer stay here would be wrong in every sense of the word. In 
that event I beg you will send or appoint some authorized agent to take 
charge of the arms and munitions of war belonging to the State, or advise 
me what disposition to make of them. 

" And, furthermore, as president of the Board of Supervisors, I beg 
you to tiike immediate steps to relieve me as Superintendent the moment 
the State determines to secede, for on no earthly account will I do any 
act, or think any thought, hostile to or in defiance of the old Govern- 
ment of the United States. With great respect, your obedient servant, 

" W. T. Sherman, Superintendent." 

Singular as it may appear, his accurate estimate of the 
situation and his intense zeal for the Union hindered in- 
stead of helping him to secure the place and rank due him 
in the struggle that followed. When Lincoln called for 
seventy-five thousand troops to take the field for the three 
months' service, he regarded the measure so triflingly in- 
adequate to meet the emergency that he declined to re- 
spond, and, instead, accepted the position of superinten- 
dent of a street railway company at St. Louis, remarking 
that the politicaus, newspapers and fools might carry on 
the fiixht until the Government realized that we were 
to have a real war, and a great one, and acted accord- 
ingly. When the time came, as he foresaw it must, that 
the President issued his call for three years' men, he in- 



stantly tendered bis services. They were as promptly ac- 
cepted, and, as colonel of the Thirteenth Infantry, he 
entered upon one of the most brilliant military careers of 
which the annals of history give any account. He was at 
that time at the very zenith of his mental and physical 
powers. Education at West Point, service in the regular 
army, and life in California, Kansas and the South, had 
especially prepared him for the important part he was to 
play in the great drama. Rugged, fearless and aggressive 
by nature, his varied experiences had intensified these 
qualities. His clear understanding of the situation enabled 
him to comprehend its requirements, and compelled him, 
from a sense of duty, to do much that was disagreeable in 
the way of enforcing discipline, giving advice, and making 
demands upon those in authority at Washington for men 
and means commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis. 
How little we now remember of many of the most serious 
troubles and trials of that hour ! 

When we look back to the war from this point of ob- 
servation, we see only its pageantry ; we think only of 
grand armies and great battles ; we see only drilled veter- 
ans commanded b}' skilled generals. Mention Grant, and 
you once more hear the roar of his heavy guns and the 
tramp of his heavy columns. Speak of Sheridan, and 
once again you see the galloping squadrons, with flashing 
sabers, sweeping on to victory. And so it is that when 
our minds go out to Sherman we find him amid the gleam- 
ing bayonets on the bloody fields of carnage. From this 
distance we see him only at the head of thoroughly organ- 
ized, equipped and well-officered armies, crashing and 
smashing onward, and ever onward, with resistless power. 
We forget how these armies were recruited, drilled and 
disciplined. We never stop to inquire about, or to meas- 
ure, the debt of gratitude we owe to those who made sol- 
diers of our " boys." 



/ 



Let us dwell here for a moment to consider how diffi- 
cult and important was this service. There were two 
kinds of bravery exhibited by those appointed to com- 
mand. One was bravery to fight the enemy ; that was 
common. The other was bravery to defy public criticism ; 
that was uncommon. The display of it was rare, because 
almost always it proved surely fatal to its possessor. It 
was a time of great excitement and exacting demands. 
Whosoever disappointed popular expectation, or displeased 
the public fancy, was instantly and generally irretrievably 
relegated to the rear. No one appreciated this more 
keenly than General Sherman ; but no one allowed it less 
to deter him from his duty. With a heart as kind as a 
woman's, he yet, with unvarying constancy, enforced the 
strictest discipline. Officers and men aUke complained, 
newspapers criticised, but he persisted and succeeded. 
Just after the battle of Bull Run, an officer of the Sixty- 
ninth New York, claiming that his term of service had 
expired, notified Sherman, who was his brigade com- 
mander, that he was going home. He was a man of posi- 
tion, and a lawyer by profession. He was supposed to 
know his rights, and to be able to command considerable 
political influence. This made no diff'erence. Sherman 
promptly commanded him to return to his post, and or- 
dered that if he attempted to leave without permission he 
should be instantly shot. A few days later, when Presi- 
dent Lincoln visited the camp and addressed the troops, 
he chanced to say, in the course of his remarks, that he 
was anxious to do all he could for their comfort, and that 
if any one had a grievance he would be glad if he would 
name it to him, so that he could, if possible, redress it. 
The officer in question thereupon interrupted him with 
the statement that he had been grossly w^ronged by the 
order of Colonel Sherman, that, in the contingency named, 



8 

he should be shot. Mr. Lincoln was somewhat nonplused 
for a moment, but his good sense came to his rescue and 
quickly relieved him. "What!" he said, "do you mean 
to say that Colonel Sherman has made an order that if you 
go home without permission you shall be shot?" "Yes, 
I do," replied the officer, " and there he stands, and he 
will not dare to deny it." Lincoln turned and looked at 
Sherman long enough to rivet upon him the attention of 
all, and then, as though having studied out a conclusion, 
he turned to the officer and said to him : " If I were in 
your place, and Colonel Sherman threatened to shoot me 
on condition, I would be careful not to give him a chance, 
for, as nearly as I can make him out, he looks like he 
would do it." It is unnecessary to add that no more was 
heard of that grievance, or that Sherman had less trouble 
thereafter enforcing his orders. 

Such incidents hastened the time when the men in 
the ranks, upon whom the restrictions and exactions of 
military life fell most severely, were the most thankful for 
discipline. They quickly saw the necessity for what was 
so demanded, and the benefits to them, as well as their 
cause, in consequence. And from that time forward to 
the close of the war, that officer was most respected and 
confided in who, in doing his own duty, made the same 
requirement of others. This is all plain enough and easy 
enough now, but it was not so then. It was the reverse. 
It was difficult, trying and dangerous in the extreme to 
the popularity necessary to get on successfully, and only 
the clear-headed, true-minded and morally brave dared to 
do their full duty in this particular. 

In another notable instance Sherman's clear percep- 
tions and frank expression of his views brought him trou- 
ble and humiliation. In the autumn of 1861 he succeeded 
to the command of the Department of the Cumberland, 



with headquarters at Louisville. The task that thus fell 
to him was that of defending our position in Kentucky, 
driving the Confederate Armies out of the State, and ulti- 
mately, as corresponding progress was made elsewhere, 
conquering his way to the Gulf. For this work he was 
furnished with but the mere fragments of a command, 
insufficiently equipped, and neither drilled nor disciplined. 
The attention of the public and of the War Department 
was so absorbed with the operations of McClellan on the 
Potomac and Fremont in Missouri that it was impossible 
for a time for him to secure any attention whatever or have 
assigned to him any of the new regiments then recruiting 
and taking the field. 

But finally his opportunity came. He got a hearing. 
Mr. Cameron, then Secretary of War, being on a visit to 
St. Louis, was, but not without difficulty, induced to come 
to Louisville as he returned. With an accuracy of knowl- 
edge and a sagacity of judgment that appear, in the light 
of subsequent events, truly marvelous, Sherman outlined 
to him the situation, his resources, the strength of the 
enemy, their future movements, and the controlling im- 
portance of the operations allotted to his field of action. 
He then startled him and the whole country by stating 
that for the defense of Kentucky he needed sixty thousand 
men, and that to conquer his way through to the sea, as 
designed, he should have at least two hundred thousand. 
The information was so unwelcome and so discouraging 
to those who were still clinging to the idea that the war 
was to be only a short skirmish, in which we were to get 
along if possible without hurting anybody, that it was at 
once repudiated, and straightway there was inaugurated 
against him a campaign of the most brutal detraction and 
abuse. The criticisms finally took the form of a charge that 
his mind had become unbalanced — that he was insane; and 



10 

day after day, in the columns of the stanchest Union news- 
papers, where he should have found marks of appreciation 
and words of cheer and encouragement, he read only the 
most cruel and wanton strictures. He was shortly relieved 
and sent to command a recruiting station. 

But finally, when driven almost crazy by persistent 
charges that he was crazy, his vindication came, and came 
grandly, both for him and his country. The calumnies 
that he was powerless to answer, the events of that peril- 
ous winter entirely overthrew. The country was at last 
thoroughly aroused, and by the magnificent victories at 
Forts Henry and Donelson encouraged and prepared to 
appreciate earnest men and sensible advice. Grant, vic- 
torious aud popular, knowing Sherman and wanting him, 
was allowed to have him. How singular the course of 
human events ! On the bloody field of Shiloh, Sherman, 
reclaimed from retirement, triumphantly redeemed him- 
self from every pspersion and stepped at once from behind 
a cloud of defamation into the clear sunlight of popular 
favor. But as Sherman rose. Grant fell in popular esteem. 
Some miscreant started the charge on its rounds that he 
had become a drunkard. It was baselv false, but it was 
idle to deny it. For the public, some victim there must 
always be. When one escapes, another must be substi- 
tuted. Such is the immutable law of public sentiment. 
Grant must take the place of Sherman. It was so decreed. 
Somebody had made a charge against him, and that was 
enough. Indictment was conviction. No trial was neces- 
sary. And thus the man who, but a few weeks before, 
had inspired a drooping cause by demanding and enforc- 
ing " unconditional surrender," was unceremoniously con- 
demned to disfavor and official execution. The iron will 
of the silent hero submitted to the injustice without a 
murmur, except only to his friend and comrade, whom he 



11 

had belpe(^ so recentl}' to rescue from the shadows of the 
asylum. But he was not unmindful of the popular clamor. 
His spirit was as sensitive as it was soldierly. He was 
keenly touched. When he had stood the gnawing of the 
wrong and injustice as long as he could endure it, and 
feeling that it was destroying his influence and power for 
good, he concluded to resign and retire from the service. 
Upon this point he consulted with Sherman, and found in 
him a true friend for both himself and his country. He 
appealed to him not to take the contemplated step ; pointed 
to his own experience, and successfully encouraged him to 
forbear and go forward in the line of dutj^ leaving results 
to the future. This was one of the most important of all 
the services rendered to his country by General Sherman. 
He saved Grant to the army, and Grant lived to give us 
Vicksburg, Mission Ridge, the AVilderness, Appomattox, the 
sword of Lee, universal freedom and perpetual union. 

From Shiloh to Vicksburg and the end of the war, 
General Sherman's services are known to all. To recount 
them would be but to wTite over again the history of 
marches, battles and sieges, with which everj' child of the 
schools is acquainted. It is enough to say here that no 
commander of ancient or modern times has shown greater 
zeal for a cause, or greater aptitude to serve one. He was 
always prepared, in season and out, in winter or summer, 
with provisions or without them, clothed or naked, to 
march any distance or fight anv battle that necessity re- 
quired or good judgment approved. He was always ready, 
always bold, always brilliant. From Chattanooga to At- 
lanta was one continuous battle-ground. For a full one 
hundred days he so closely confronted Johnston and Hood, 
when they stood on the defensive, and so hotly pursued, 
when they retreated, that his army was constantly under 
fire without a moment's interruption either by night or by 



12 

day. By indefatigable effort, skillful strategy, consum- 
mate generalship and heroic battle he drove the enemy 
from one line of defenses to another, until finally it was 
his happy privilege to electrify the country and refute the 
then prevalent slander that " the war was a failure," by 
wiring the President that " Atlanta is ours, and fairly 
won." 

Whatever may be the propriety of a discussion in a 
defensive way of General Sherman's next great achieve- 
ments, from either a moral or a military point of view, I 
have neither disposition nor patience to enter upon it. 
If there be those who for any reason can derive comfort 
from claiming or arguing that he was not justified in de- 
stroying Atlanta and sweeping like a besom of destruc- 
tion down to the sea and up through the Carolinas, the 
all-sufficient answer is, and will forever remain, that it 
brought the end, and, to bring the end, was the greatest 
of mercies. He correctly said that war was the science 
of barbarism, and that it could not be refined. It meant 
necessarily waste and destruction of life and treasure, and 
there was no way to stop it until the one side or the other 
was beaten. To weaken an enemy it is not only proper 
to kill his soldiers in battle, but also to destroy his re- 
sources. The policy of protecting private property, that 
prevailed at the beginning, was a mistaken sentimental- 
ism. It only spared a strength by which the struggle was 
protracted. Beyond this idea and its requirements no 
property was ever touched, no individual rights were in- 
vaded and no harm was done to any non-combatant, either 
white or black, male or female, old or young, rich or poor. 
In the light of this fact, what does it matter what the 
truth may be, about which the newspapers are just now so 
much occupied, whether he or AVade Hampton burned 
Columbia ? Why argue such a question ? Probably 



13 

neither had any personal responsibility for it ; but however 
that may be, the truth is that either might claim credit for 
it without risking any substantial loss of esteem. Colum- 
bia simply fell a sacrifice to the fortunes of war, and no 
city, except only Charleston, had less reason to expect 
immunity from such a fate under such circumstances. 
Such controversies can not change the fact that these cam- 
paigns were brilliant, both in conception and in results. 

The march to the sea shook the Confederacy to its 
foundations. His trail was a swath forty miles wide, prac- 
tically stripped of every substance that could maintain a pop- 
ulation or sustain an army. His purpose was a new base 
of supplies, to cut the Confederacy in twain, and make a 
better acquaintance, first with South Carolina and then 
with Richmond. Stopping at Savannah only long enough 
to present it to the President, together with 150 heavy 
guns and 25,000 bales of cotton as a Christmas gift, and 
to refit his men and recruit his commissary stores, he 
turned the head of his column northward and took up the 
line of march into the original home of secession. While 
all concede the effective results of these campaigns, yet 
by many they have been regarded as so far free from 
hardships and danger as to have been little more than 
pleasure tramps. There is some excuse for this as to the 
march to the sea. The weather was fine, the roads were 
firm, foraging was good and enemies were scarce. 

The man who wrote " Marching Through Georgia " 
had tolerably accurate knowledge. But the campaign in 
the Carolinas was different. It was attended with consid- 
erable fighting. The season was inclement. It rained 
almost incessantly. The rivers and streams were swollen, 
and, in many cases, they were exceedingly difficult to cross. 
The roads were heavy on the highlands, and almost im- 
passable in the low. At times they would lead through 
swamps miles in width, where it was necessary to build 



14 

corduroy roads, sometimes as many as six layers of logs 
in depth, before the artillery and wagon trains could pass. 
This work required skillful engineering, fatiguing labor 
and serious exposure. All day and all night long men 
uncomplainingly trudged and toiled in the mud, rain, 
water and mire. There w^as no service they did not 
cheerfully render. They appreciated the effective blows 
they were striking, and, with supreme pride and confidence 
in their commander, vied wdth one another to overcome 
every obstacle and crown him again wdth triumph. This 
was his last campaign. It was a fit ending. It not only 
closed the war outside of Virginia, but it administered 
well-merited punishment to those who were its immediate 
and principal authors. Defeat w^as more acceptable to the 
rest of the States in rebellion, after South Carolina had 
been made to know and suff'er the horrors she had invoked, 
and victory would hardly have been^ satisfactory to the 
North, or a guarantee of peace to the nation for the future, 
without such a chastisement of this refractory sister. 

Since his death many estimates of his military rank 
have been published. Among others one from General 
Wolseley, of the British Army. While what he says is as 
creditable as could be expected from a man wdiose sympa- 
thies were with the Confederacy, and who thinks Lee was 
the greatest general of the war, yet it is sufficiently lack- 
ing in appreciation to force upon the mind a contrast be- 
tween the dead hero and the living critic. This is not the 
place to make extended comparisons, but it ma}' not be 
inappropriate to sa}', by way of bringing us to a more com- 
])lete realization of what Sherman accomplished, that he 
fought more than a score of battles of so little importance, 
in his judgment, that he never dignified them with a name, 
the least of which was, however, greater, measured by the 
number of men engaged and the causualties sustained, than 
the greatest in which the British General has ever com- 
manded. Fighting a motley horde of half-starved, half- 



15 

clothed and half-armed barbarians on the sands of Egypt, 
is a vast!}' different thing from fighting Joseph E. Johns- 
ton, with his gallant and well-drilled veterans, in their 
almost impregnable intrenchments, amid the mountain fast- 
nesses of Northern Georgia. It is safe to say that had 
General Wolseley been pitted against the foe that con- 
fronted Siierman, instead of the half-organized mob he 
won so much fame in vanquishing at Tel-el-Keber, he 
would know more about war than he does, and it is by no 
means improbable that he would be a far less distinguished 
personage than he is. It is refreshing to answer such 
"damning with faint praise" with testimouiais of genuine 
worth. 

No one was better qualified to justly estimate General 
Sherman than was General Grant. On the 4th of March, 
1864, when he was called to Washington to take the rank 
of Lieutenant-General and assume command of all the 
armies, he wrote as follows : 

' ' "Whilst I have been eminently successful in this war, in at least gain- 
ing the confidence of the public, no one feels more than I how much of 
this success is due to the energy, skill, and the harmonious putting forth 
of that energy and skill, of those whom it has been my good fortune to 
have occupying subordinate positions under me. There are many officers 
to whom these remarks are applicable to a greater or less degree, propor- 
tionate to their ability as soldiers ; but what I want is to express my 
thanks to you and McPherson as the men to whom, above all others, I 
feel indebted for whatever I have had of success. How far your advice and 
assistance have been of help to me, you know. How far your execution 
of whatever has been given to you to do entitles you to the reward I am 
receiving, you can not know as well as I. I feel all the gratitude this 
letter would express, giving it the most flattering construction." 

General Sherman's answer is not strictly in order at 
this point, but it is pardonable to read it. Both of these 
letters are so admirable in every respect that they should 
always be read together, and it is impossible to read them 
too often. He said among other things : 

" You do yourself injustice and us too much honor in assigning to us 
too large a share of the merits which have led to your high advancement. 



16 

I know you approve the friendship I have ever professed to you, and will 
permit me to continue, as heretofore, to manifest it on all proper occasions. 
You are now Washington's legitimate successor, and occupy a position of 
almost dangerous elevation, but if you can continue, as heretofore, to be 
yourself— simple, honest and unpretending — you will enjoy through life 
the respect and love of friends and the homage of millions of human be- 
ings that will award you a large share in securing to them and their de- 
scendants a government of law and stability. I repeat, you do General 
McPherson and myself too much honor. At Belmont you manifested 
your traits, neither of us being near. At Donelson also you illustrated 
your whole character. I was not near, and General McPherson in too 
subordinate a capacity to influence you. Until you had won Donelson 
I was almost cowed by the terrible array of anarchial elements that pre- 
sented themselves at every point ; but that admitted a ray of light I have 
followed since. I believe you are as brave, patriotic and just as the 
great prototype Washington — as unselfish, kind-hearted and honest as a 
man should be ; but the chief characteristic is the simple faith in success 
you have always manifested, which I can liken to nothing else than the 
faith a Christian has in the Savior. This faith gave you victory at Shiloh 
and Vicksburg. Also when you have completed your best preparations, 
as at Chattanooga — no doubts, no reserves ; and I tell you it was this 
that made us act with confidence. T knew that wherever I was you 
thought of me, and if I got in a tight place you would help me out, if 
alive. " 

Only great men could write such letters. They reveal 
the mainspring of their success. It was generous rivalry, 
not of each other, but to co-operate with each other for 
the good of their country's cause. They had no time 
for jealousies. The}' made war only on the common enemy. 
They were patriots. 

But there are other testimonials I would mention. 
After Atlanta fell congratulatory messages were plentiful. 
Among them was this: 

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C, "j 
September 3, 1864. j 

The national thanks are tendered by the President to Maj.-Gen. W. T. 
Sherman and the gallant officers and soldiers of his command before At- 
lanta for the distinguished ability and perseverance displayed in the 
campaign in Georgia, which, under divine favor, has resulted in the 
capture of Atlanta, The marches, battles, sieges and other military op- 



7 



17 

erations that have signalized the campaign must render it famous in the 
annals of war, and have entitled those who have participated therein 
to the applause and thanks of the nation, 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 
President of the United States. 

General Grant wired bim from City Point as follows : 

" In honor of your great victory I have ordered a salute to be fired 
with shotted guns from every battery bearing upon the enemy." 

These are but examples of the expressions he was 
continually eliciting to the end of the war, not only from 
President Lincoln and General Grant, but also from 
members of Congress and all others in position to know 
and value his services. Upon such a record all questions 
as to his military fame can be safely submitted. 

No man can conclusively say to which of our com- 
manders we owe the most. There are naturally differences 
of opinion. One excelled in this, another in that. Gen- 
eral Sherman showed as much M'hen he said he could 
always make a dozen plans for a battle and Sheridan could 
successfully fight any one of them, but that only Grant 
could invariably tell which was the best. There is one 
thing, however, about which we can all agree, and that is, 
that to belong in the group of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan 
and Thomas is immortality of honor. They fittingly cor- 
respond to Washington, Jefferson, Webster and Lincoln, 
the four men who would be chosen by common consent to 
compose the first and highest group in American history 
for illustrious services in civil life. 

High as the compliment may be, General Sherman 
was distinguished equally with any one of these for the 
just estimate he had of the great problem of government 
here to be worked out, and of the tremendous possibilities 
of this country for the future. He knew how fatal failure 
would be — how grandly triumphant success. As though 
standing on a towering peak, unaffected by the storms that 



18 

beat about its base, he looked over the clouds of conten- 
tion that obscured the vision of others and saw only the 
greatness and the grandeur that lay beyond. With pro- 
phetic eye he beheld the sublime destiny that awaited us if 
only slavery could be abolished, the doctrines of secession 
be destroyed, and all the sections be dedicated to human 
freedom. It was that great purpose that moved him. 
Before its consummation all else paled into insignificance. 
He saw the way so clearly, and comprehended the ends so 
justly, that he was impatient with all conservatism and 
chafed under ever\' restraint. He knew that in the provi- 
dence of God the opportunity had come for the American 
people to become an American nation, and be the safe 
guardians of " the jewel of liberty in the family of free- 
dom." It was for that his soul was on fire. And it was 
because of this greatness of his purpose that he never 
turned aside because of the spiteful enemies by whom he 
was at times assailed. He knew the day would come when 
all would see as he saw, and for that he could afford to 
wait. If that day be not already here, at least the dawn 
of it has broken upon us. Those who suffered most from 
his operations are now rejoicing in the fruits of his labors, 
and most of them gratefully acknowledge that his victory 
was their victory as welL Where, twenty -five years ago, 
his name was spoken only to be execrated, a just measure 
of his character and a profound respect for his lofty patri- 
otism are spreading in the minds of men, and ere long the 
time will be when, in the pride of a common country, a 
common greatness and a common destiny, the people of 
the Southern States will thank all who aided to save them 
from slavery, disunion and political death ; and in that 
hour no name will stand higher or shine brighter for them 
than that of William Tecumseh Sherman. 

But there was much more of General Sherman than 
appeared in his public life. On the morning after the bat- 



19 

tie of Bentonville, where his last campaign was crowned 
with success, one of his generals congratulated him upon 
his achievement, and with fitting words of compliment 
ventured to prophesy that he would some day be President 
of the United States. There, upon the last field he fought, 
with all civil distinctions both possible and probable, he 
quickly answered that he would never be President of the 
United States, nor hold any other political office, remark- 
ing, as the reason therefor, that the American people were 
so exacting in their demands and so fickle in their attach- 
ments that no man could afford to give them service, ex- 
cept when duty required. He then, in explanation, spoke 
feelingly of the time when he was charged with insanity 
and Grant with drunkenness. Scarcely a month passed 
before, in a large measure, the truth of what he said as to 
the uncertainty of popular favor was again strikingly ex- 
emplified in his own case. One of the terms agreed upon 
between him and Gen. .Joseph E. Johnston for the sur- 
render of Johnston's forces was repudiated by the adminis- 
tration and rejected by public judgment. The criticisms 
of loyal Northern newspapers were so severe that most of 
them, finding their way to his camp at Raleigh, were indig- 
nantly consigned to the flames. Time soon healed this 
new trouble, and he was again as popular as ever before. 
But he never changed his mind about political place. 
Neither the Presidency nor any other civil station had for 
him the slightest fascination. Time and again he forbade 
the use of his name in such a connection. He was great 
enough to be content with the high success he had attained 
in the profession for which he had been educated, and to 
be remembered and honored by his countrymen as the 
great soldier he was. 

Of commanding stature, martial bearing and graceful 
carriage, the bare sight of him was enough to attract atten- 
tion and excite admiration in any assemblage. He seemed 



20 

by intuition almost to know all about nature, science, 
literature and art. He was a perfect magazine of all kinds 
of knowledge. In conversation, although at times brusque 
and blunt, he was both instructive and charming ; and, 
while making no pretensions to oratory, he was in public 
speech fluent, versatile and forcible. His sharp, crisp and 
striking sentences fell upon the ear like the rattle of mus- 
ketry. He wrote as well as he talked. He had a military 
directness and precision of statement that was almost 
classical in simplicity and strength. His letters are equal 
to Napoleon's, and his memoirs will be for the Americans 
of the future what Csesar's Commentaries are for the 
Romans. 

And who that enjoyed it can ever forget the warmth 
of his friendship ? It was equaled only by the tenderness 
of his nature, the steadfastness of his loyalty and his ab- 
solute freedom from every species of petty meanness. 

Of distinguished family, he was, nevertheless, in every 
essential and honorable sense, one of those whom Lincoln 
styled the common people. 

Born to command, he knew how to obey. Proud to 
do right, he was humility itself in the presence of duty. 
Possessed of all the autocratic power that attached to his 
exalted rank, he never allowed himself to forget or dis- 
regard the rights of the humblest of his private soldiers. 
In his intercourse with men, he constantly recognized that 
idea of human equality that lies at the basis and consti- 
tutes the genius of free popular government. Free from 
sentimentalism, and despising all affectation and insincer- 
ity, his sympathies were with all good men and all good 
deeds. The world is vastly better for his having lived in 
it. He is dead ! Yes, he is dead ! But the good he did 
has onlv commenced to live. The years will but brighten 
the pages of his history, and add to his glory and fame. 



SPEECH 



OF 



Ei-Sov. J. B. FORMER 



DELIVERED AT 



ATHENS, OHIO, 

Wednesday, 
September 16, 1891. 



State Issues, a Free Ballot, 
Silver, Tariff and Re- 
ciprocity. 



Fellow Citizens — This is a great year for America. We 
have had a genial spring, a pleasant summer, and are 
entering upon what promises to be a delightful fall. Our 
crops are unusually abundant, and the prices they are com- 
manding -are unusually high. Wheat is going up, and 
sugar is coming down. Our exports are going out, and 
gold is coming in. Peace, plenty and prosperity rest like 
a benediction on all this broad land. We were never so 
strong, never so rich, never so contented, and never so re- 
spected. 

It is also a great year for Republicans. Wisdom, patriot- 
ism and unswerving fidelity to duty characterize, in all its 
departments, the administration of Benjamin Harrison, 
and here ;n _Ohio the progress of our gallant standard- 
bearer, since the day of his nomination, has been nothing 
less than a triumphal march. He is literally triple-armed 
as he goes about over the state, battling for an honest 
dollar, protecting to American industries and the redempt- 
ion of our State from Democratic misrule. He has already 
won the admiration, confidence and affection, not only of 
Ohio, but of the whole Xation, and in November next he 
will win a victory at the polls second to none in our politi- 
cal annals. Meeting under such inspiring circumstances, 
it is more than an ordinary pleasure to address you. 

We are to elect this year a Governor and a Legislature. 
The Legislature will be charged with the duty of electing a 
U. S. Senator and redistricting the State for representation 
in Congress. Both State and National issues are there- 
fore involved and properly discussed. I shall speak first 
of State issues. 

Sincetlie. organization of the Republican party we have 
had in Ohio only four Democratic Governors, each for one 
term only: Allen, Bishop, Hoadly and Canipbell. Under 
each ai)pro])riations have been extravgantly increased. The 
public institutions have been badly managed, and general 
demoralization and discredit have been the result: but all 
the evils of Allen, Bishop and Hoadly combined were not 
equal to those of the Campbell administration. These are 



>s3 



SO numerous and so familiarly known that it is at once both 
imposible and unnecessary to do more in supi)ort of such an 
assertion than to briefly allude to only a few of the most 
notorious. 

First, there w^as the election of 

CALVIN S. BRICE 

To the Senate of the United States. That was a most re- 
markable performance. Mr. Brice had not resided in Ohio 
for years. He had never been identitied with the Demo- 
cracy of this State except in the slightest degree. He had 
never made a political speech that anybody has ever yet 
heard tell of. His views, if he had any, on the political 
question of the day were known only to himself. He had 
aained considerable notoriety as a rainbow chaser, a rail- 
road wrecker, a A\'all street wizard and a tax dodger; but 
in the held of politics he was a newcomer, without name, 
fame or claim for such a recognition, and yet he was 
promptly preferred in the contest for that high honor over 
all the great leaders and able representatives who had been 
fiolitinu' the battles of Democracv for vears. His election 
under such circumstances excited the gravest suspicions and 
called forth, even from Democrats, the most ])ositive and 
plausible cliarges of bribery and corru})tion. What truth 
there may have been in these charges will probably never 
be fully known, but it is known of all men that the trans- 
action was of such color in its outward apj)earances as to 
place a stigma upon our State, second only, if second at all, 
in deo-ree to the disgrace of the Pavne election. 
The next step was the 

OUSTIXG OF LIEUTEXAXT GOYERXOll 

LAMPSOX. 

This was an outrage, pure and sim])le. It was without ex- 
cuse, without proof, without more than the mere^^t pretense 
of a due proceeding. In the most indecent and unwarranted 



A 



manner, they set aside the expressed will of the people, and 
turned out of office the people's choice, an able, experienced 
and worthy man, in order that they might place in his 
stead a subservient tool, who would aid and abet their par- 
tisan purposes. 

The man who accepted the fruits of this wrong was Wil- 
liam V. Marquis. For two years he has held an office, 
enjoyed its distinctions and drawn its salary, with the full 
knowledge that he was not elected thereto by the people. 
Mr. Marquis has been renominated. He is again the can- 
didate for Lieutenant Governor on the Democratic ticket. 
A man who would accept an office to w^hich he knew he had 
not been duly chosen, never should enjoy the honor of an 
election. Under our system of government, the will of the 
people is the highest sovereign powder, and whosoever de- 
feats that will, whether by fraud, violence, chicanery or 
abuse of opportunity, strikes at the very spirit and genius of 
American institutions, and the party that indorses such a 
transaction by nominating such a candidate, deserves for 
that act alone, aside f^om all other considerations, the most 
overwhelming defeat. 

COXGRESSIONAL GERRYMAXDER. 

Another act that deserves special condemnation was the 
rearrangement of our Congressional Districts. \se have 
had gerrymanders before, but this is the lirst time in our 
history that all sense of fairness has been utterly disre- 
garded. Either party is expected to take any legitimate 
advantage to strengthen its representation in Congress, but 
neither party has either a moral or a political right to dis- 
regard every idea and sentiment of justice, and no Legisla- 
ture ever before attem|)ted to do so. This is a Republican 
State. We have a plurality, under any ordinary circum- 
stances, of not less than 2(),(XX) votes. Any lair division of 
the districts would give us a decisive majority of the rep- 
resentatives, but this gerrymander was so indecentl}^ unfair 
as to give us but six out of twenty-one. We owe to the 



^^ 



•whole Nation to right this wrong ; but if the next Legisla- 
ture be Democratic, there will be no change made, except 
to make the matter worse, if that be possible. 

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS. 

And thwe is one respect in which, upon a kindred sub- 
ject, they can and will, judging from what they have already 
attempted, make matters a great deal worse. The constitu- 
tion of the United States provides that the Presidential 
Electors shall be chosen by each State, ''in such manner as 
the Legislature thereof niay direct." In the early days 
electors^ were chosen in some of the States by Congressional 
Districts. Finally, however, that method, and also the 
method of choosing by the Legislature, which had been 
adopted in some of the States, were adandoned, and the cus- 
tom became universal of selecting by the vote of the electors 
of the State at large. This had become the settled and sat- 
isfactorv rule and law of the land. But now, in pursuance 
of what appears to be a deliberately planned conspiracy to 
cajttun^ the next Presidency at any and all hazards, it has 
been broken first by the Democratic Legislature of ^Michi- 
gan enacting a law*^providing for the selection of Electors by 
Congressional Districts. What Michigan has done, the 
Deniocrats of Ohio were to have done, and, in the last Leg- 
islature, did undertake to do. 

Senator Buchanan introduced a bill providing that the 
State of Ohio should choose her Presidential Electors by 
Congressional districts, and without doubt it would have 
Ijcen enacted into a law, but for the fear they had that they 
would so arouse the Republicans of this State as to make 
Repu1)lican victory this year an overwhelming certainty, in 
which event the law would be changed before the next 
Presidential election. But no fear of that kind would re- 
stram the next Legislature, if it should be Democratic, and 
in that event, as certainly as Michigan has such a law now, 
Ohio will have one also before November, 1892 ; and in 
stead of twenty-three votes for the next Republican candi- 



6 

<lale for tlic Presidency, we can give him only eight at the 
outside, or two from the State at large and one from each of 
the six gerrymandered districts, in which we have a Repub- 
lican majority. It would mean the loss of fifteen Republi- 
can Electors from Ohio, with that number added to the 
Democrats, in the next Electoral College, or a difference of 
thirty, sufficient to change the result, and thus lose us the 
]*residency. But a more serious result would be in the fact 
that such a scheme, successfully carried out, would encour- 
age a resort to such revolutionary measures ; for a revolu- 
tion it w^ould be of the settled laws, and the satisfactory 
system which has by common consent become the settled 
law, in all the States of the Union. It is a step in the di- 
rection of Mexicanizing the United States. You can not 
•overestimate its seriousness, and you could not make a 
o-reater mistake than to fall into the belief that the wrong 
is too great to be seriously contemplated. Nothing is too 
serious for the Democratic party where its interests are in- 
volved. It is never troubled with scruples on such occa- 
sions. It is always ready to do whatever may promise to 
promote its success. Besides, we know they have enacted 
such a law in ^lichigan. AMiy should they not do the same 
in Ohio? There is "only one way to prevent it, and that is 
by not giving them a chance 

" Hence it is that this election involves not only the Gov- 
ernorship and the U. S. Senatorshi}), as already stated, but 
also at least eight Rei)resentatives in the lower house of 
Congress, for we should have that many more than we are 
now allowed, and a loss of fifteen Presidential Electors, or a 
<lifference of thirty votes in the Electoral College. In other 
words, the Presidency itself depends on our next Legisla- 
ture. If, therefore, the Republicans of Ohio want to be 
fairly represented in Congress, thwart this iniquity, elect 
the. next President, and maintain the present system of 
choosing Presidential Electors, they must see to it that a 
Republican Legislature is returned. Let me urge you, 
therefore, to the most zealous support of your candidates for 
State Senator and Representative. Both men are in every 



/ 



sense worthy of that support upon their own merit, but the 
results are too iiiouientous for personal considerations, or to 
admit of any question as to what duty requires. Bear in 
mind, therefore, that this is a good year to vote the Repub- 
lican ticket without a scratch on it, from Governor down to 
Iiilirmarv Director. 

HOME RULE. 

In another respect this Democratic Legislature has 
made itself obnoxious. No claim was so loud or so potential 
in the campaign of 1889 as that of home rule. From c\('t\- 
press and every stump it was asserted that tl:c w..;- - 
municipalities had been deprived of the right to lully 
govern themselves. There was no excuse for this claim. 
It was founded on a mole-hill which they artfully magni- 
fied into a mountain. But no sooner were they in power 
than all there promises were forgotten, and there was 
commenced and prosecuted to the end, a most merci- 
less and unjust tearing down, ri])ping up and reorganiza- 
tion of our most important city governments. Every 
principal of home rule, as it had been expounded and 
promised in the campaign, was violated and trampled under 
foot, until the phrase itself became a by-word to serve as a 
butt of ridicule. 

TESTIMOXY OF GENERAL HAWKINS. 

But specifications are tedious. The work and general 
character of this General Assembly were well summarized 
at the close of its first session bv General Hawkins, at 
that time Adjutant General and Chief of the Governor's 
staff. He was not only a Democrat, but a Democrat in 
ofiice. He was not a sorehead; he was a part of the Admii.is- 
tration. Consistently with his i-elations to his party, noth- 
ing but a sense of duty and a regard for truth could have 
prompted him to speak as he did. What he said has 
often been re[)eated, but will bear repetition again and 
again. It should be kept constantly before the voters of 



8 

Ohio until we have passed final judgment at the ballot hox. 
General Hawkins said, speaking of the Legislature : 

" It will go down to history as the most unsatisfactory 
official body that ever met in the State House. * * The 
majority of its acts are either indifferent or very bad. * * 
It iias insisted on doing things that will damn it for all 
time to come. * * It will be distinguished as having 
spent thousands of dollars on useless expenditures, * * 
for having cowardly forsaken its German allies, * * for 
dealing in a weak and uncertain way with the canals, * * 
and for accepting from boodlers a goodly sum of money: * * 
for having among its members some of the smallest and 
cheapest rascals that ever got into politics, men who saw 
no good in any measure unless they could discover a |5 
greenback wrapped up in it." 

Such was the Democratic Legislature according to Demo- 
cratic authority. General Hawkins knew what he was 
talking about. He was in a position to know. Xo man 
can, therefore, rightfully question the truth of his state- 
ments. But if they stand, as stand they must, the O'Con- 
nor Legislature and the Coal-oil Legislature, and all the 
other Democratic General Assemblies of infamous memory 
are not the equals in wrong doing of this, for of all of them 
put together, no Republican, even, ever spoke such words 
of censure as are these of this Democrat. 

And yet it was this body, " the most unsatisfactory that 
ever met in the State House," the most of whose acts were 
" either indifferent or very bad," that "insisted on doing 
things that will damn it for all time to come;" that "spent 
thousands of dollars on useless expenditures;" that "ac- 
cepted from boodlers goodly sums of money, and had 
among its members some of the smallest and cheapest ras- 
cals that ever got into politics — men who saw no good in 
any measure unless they could discover a ^5 greenback 
wrapped up in it," which the Democratic party in its plat- 
form "commends for its business qualifications, economy 
and reform." 



7 



GOVERNOR CAMPBELL. 

Turning now to the Governor himself, the record is not 
helped any, to say the least. A large portion of his time 
during the campaign of 1889 was spent denouncing the 
Board of Public Aifairs that had been appointed for the 
city of Cincinnati. In this connection there was no 
language so virulent or so indecent that he hesitated 
to use it. How stands the record ? He is not 
making any charges now against anybody, except only his 
own ap})ointees and members of his own party. He has no 
time ; they completely occupy his attention. Before a year 
had passed he felt called upon to convene the General As- 
semblv in extraordinary session to abolish the Board of 
Public Improvements which he had appointed to take the 
place of the Board of Public Aifairs, on the ground that it 
was so incompetent, dishonest and corrupt that he could not 
tolerate its existence, for a short two months longer, until 
the cam})aign then in progress would be ended and the Gen- 
eral Assembly Avould meet in regular session. But before 
the investigation the Legislature ordered was ended the 
Governor's attitude became so mortifvinii' and his motives 
appeared so questionable that notwithstanding all he could 
say and prove, his much aljused Board outranked him in 
public contidence and esteem. 

MAXAGEMEXT OF PUBLIC IX8T1TUTI0XS. 

Another of his complaints was that the public institu- 
tions of the State had been badlv and extravagantly man- 
aged. He promised to remedy the alleged wrong. 

He has had an opportunity, and »'hat is the result ? It 
has aot justitied either his criticism or his promises. Dur- 
ing the four years preceding his administration there was 
not the slightest scandal of any kind in connection with the 
management of any of the public institutions of the State, 
penal or benevolent, while the cost per capita of maintain- 
ing the same touched the lowest point ever reached. Such 
a record should have shielded them from molestation, but 



10 

it (lid nut. Superintendents of asylums, conceded to be 
among the ablest of their class in the United States, were 
promptly turned out with as little ceremony as though they 
had been so many janitors, to make room for men without 
experience, fitness or claim, except that they were Demo- 
crats whose appointments would pay the Governor's politi- 
cal debts, and who could be relied upon to take care of 
Democratic workers and use their places to promote Demo- 
cratic success. The result has been the legitimate conse- 
quence. Scarcely an institution has escaped scandal and 
investigation. -From one learn all. 

The following are but a few of the many charges that 
were made against Dr. C. B. Chesher, appointed in Jan- 
uary last to succeed Dr. Strong as Superintendent of the 
Cleveland Asylum. They were made directly to the Gov- 
ernor by J. C. Lower, a Democrat, who had held the posi- 
tion of private secretary under the Superintendent, and 
therefore with full knowledge. I quote briefly from a long 
list and only to exhibit a mere sample of the charges and 
scandals that have disgraced almost every other public in- 
stitution of the State. Mr. Lower says : 

" Dr. Chesher is incompetent to fill the position of Super- 
intendent of an insane asylum. Xow let me detail just a 
little. Of the 725 patients now in the asylum I dare say 
that Dr. Chesher is not acquainted with more than a dozen 
cases. He never examined a single patient when admitted 
into the asylum. He never wrote a })rescription. He never 
ad\'ised with any of the assistant physicians as to the 
ti-eatment of a single patient. He never expressed an opin- 
ion (m insanity within the knowledge of any of the assistant 
])hysicians or employes of the asylum. He even seldom 
walks through the wards. One of the attendants says he 
has been in his ward but three times. A number of them 
say that he walks through now and then just like a visitor 
would. And notwithstanding the fact that insanity is a 
mystery to him, he went to work and appointed a brother 
of his as assistant physician, who is about fifty-five years 
old and who knows even less about insanity than the Super- 



/ 



11 

intondent, if such a thine: is possible. I think 1 can truth 
fully say — and I received my information from the drU^^- 
gist and two of the assistant physicians — that the Supe'rili- 
tendent's brother would have killed a number of patients by 
over-doses, but the attendants mistrusted the size of ■ the 
doses and consulted the other assistant physicians before 
giving the same. This same man has also been drunk in 
the asylum. He has charge of six wards, and possil)]y 22o 
patients. He doesn't know one-third of them, and iit'is a 
matter of public comment by those in the building and 
those visiting inmates. When asked to know the condition 
of a patient, he frequently is obliged to go and ask the at- 
tendants. The Superintendent in such cases generally ven- 
tures the opinion that ' there is no change; just about the 
same ; it is difficult to say as to the outcome in those cases, 
but the i)hysician will be down soon.' Many of those who 
have called to see friends have damned the Superintendent, 
and wanted to know why he should ever have been thouu-ht 
of as superintendent of an insane asylum. You can w^ll 
imagine the comments that are being made both inside 
and outside of the building. These charges, and a 
great many more of a similar nature, I can prove and will 
prove if given an opportunity. Let me emj)hasize the fact 
that I can prove every assertion I have made to the satis- 
faction of any unbiased, intelligent man. Such incompe- 
tency as I have described is frecpiently the one nuiin toi)ic 
of conversation throughout the building. 

"It is not a pleasant matter to charge a man with dis- 
honesty, and in this case I satisfied myself thoroughly bp- 
fore doing so. Dr. C. B. Chesher is dishonest, if you call jt 
dishonest to receive money from the friends of patients iji 
consideration of doing their bidding. Let me give you 
some facts. After I was out at the Asylum somcvmonths 
Dr. Chesher requested me to write a number of letters to 
different relatives of chronic patients. The letters stated 
that owing to the fact that the patient is incurable, and that 
the house is very much crowded, he did not think that he 
could carry so and so any longer, and wound up with 



Y 

12 

* Please call.' Quite a number called at once. They were 
extremely anxious not to have their friends removed. Thev 
dived down into their pockets and said, ' Here is twenty- 
five ; try and keep her, and I will do all I can every month.' 
I heard part of this conversation, and Dr Che.^her himself 
related the same to me and then made the remark, "Whv, 
I could make more that wav than mv salary amount.s to.' 
The Superintendent has recei^'cd money under such circum- 
stances and never accounted for one dollar of it. One man 
told me that the Superintendent tinally said. ' I will 
keep your wife for fifteen dollars a morith,' to which this- 
man replied, ' I will not pay you one dollar." Has your 
leg been pulled?' is a question frequently interchanged be- 
tween those who have friends at the Asylum. Since that 
first batch of letters, mentioned above, and which I wrote, 
Dr. Chesher has written quite a large number of similar 
letters himself to my own positive knowledge. He would 
threaten to remove patients and request the correspondents 
on the books to call." 

When it is remembered that it was to make room for 
such a man as this that the able, highly honorable, exper- 
ienced, venerable and faithful Dr. Jamin Strong was turned 
out of place, it is difficult to find parliamentary language 
strong enough to do the subject justice. The 

FIXA^XIAL MANAGEMENT 



Has been in keeping. The following table contrasts Camp- 
bell's first year with the last year of my administration, 
giving the per capita cost of maintaining the several in- 
stitutions : 



FORAKER— LAST YEAR, 1889. 



j DAILY 
' AVERAGE IN 
INSTITUTION 



Insane Asvlums^ 

Athens 787 

Cleveland 663 

Columbus 8o2 

Davton o74 

Toiedo 976 

Benevolent Institutions-^ 

Imbecile 808 

Blind.... : 240 

Deaf and Dumb 404 

S. andS. 0. Home 810 

S. and S. Home 307 

Penal and Ketormatorv-^ I 

Penitentiary j 1,49/ 

Bovs' Industrial School.! o60 

Girls" Industrial Home.' 292 



CURRENT 
EXPENSES, 
INCLUDING 

SALARIES. 



PER 

CAPITA 

COST. 



$111,612.34 $141.82 

107,338.53 161.90 

142,14o.l6 166.84 

91.594.4.5 159.57 

122,448.96 125.46 



107,725.70 
51.557.62 
69,590.42 

135.987.14 
48.931.85, 

I 
I 

220.714.80' 
64.655.95 
34.523.96i 



133.32 

214.82 
172.25 
167.88 
159.38 

147.44 
115.45 
118.23 



CAMPBELL. 
FIRST YEAR, 1890. 



Daily 
Average In 
Institution 



Insane Asylums \ 

Athens 797 

Cleveland 697 

Columbus I 897 

Davton ' 589 

Toledo 1,119 

B'n'vt Institutions! 

Inbecile j 851 

Blind I 212 

Deaf and Dumb! 370 

S. & S. 0. Homej 598 

S. & S. Home.. 531 

Penal <S: Ref'm'trv 

Penitentiary . . . 1,599 

Bovs'Ind School 603 

Girls' Ind. Home! 288 



Current Expenses 
including Salaries 



Per Capita 
Cost. 



Increase Decrease. 



$119,165.56 
110,187.68 
159,453.63 
100.601.13 
142.586.64 

49,205.47 

70,404.98 

143.970.56 

85,194.20: 

I 

248,231.99 
75,318.48 
33,767.53 



$149.52$ 7.70; 
158.09 I $3.81 
177.76 10.92! 
170.80:11.23 
127.43 1.97 

147.55 14.23 
232.10; 17.28 
190.28| 18.03 
180.411 12.53 
]58.65i 

1^55.24 7.80 
124.91: 9.46| 
117.251 j 98 



73 



Average per capita of all institutions in 1890.. 
Average per capita of all institutions in 1889.. 
1890 (Democrat) over 1889 (Republican) 




3^ 



1-i 

This table was made up irom the statistics compiled by 
the non-partisan Board of State Charities, and is absolutely 
reliable. It tells the story with more eloquence and force 
than any orator can express it. It will be observed that at 
the Cleveland Asylum there was a decrease of ^3.81 per 
capita, and at the Soldiers' and Sailors' Home, at Sandus- 
ky, there was a decrease of 73 cents per capita, while in . 
every other institution, except only the Girls' Industrial 
Home at Delaware, there was an increase ranoino- all the 
way upward from $7.70 at the Athens Asylum to .$18.03 at 
the Deaf and Dumb Asylum at Columbus. 

The Cleveland Asylum remained in charge of Dr. Strong 
until after the close of the year, while in like manner Gen- 
eral Force remained at the head of the Soldiers' and Sailors' 
H©me at Sandusky. 

In other words, in every institution of which the Camp- 
bell administration took charge, except only one, there was 
an extravagant increase of expense, while in the only two 
not disturbed durino- the vear there was a decrease. But 
for the changes made by Campbell, there would doubtless 
have been a decrease in all, since sup])lies were notaldy 
cheaper in 1890 than in 1889, and good, economical man- 
agement would have shown a corresponding and uniform 
decrease in the cost of management. The account is not 
yet closed for the second year, but enough is known to jus- 
tify the statement that the per capita cost will be found to 
have been still further greatly increased ; but if it should 
be onlv the same shown bv the table for the tirst year, the 
cost to the State of Governor Campbell's management of the 
public institutions, over and above the cost of the manage- 
ment he criticised and succeeded, would be, on this account' 
alone, for the two years of his administration. $142,6(X), to 
say nothing of the incompetency, demoralization and scan- 
dals that have disgraced that management. 

The signilicance of these figures is in the fact that they 
are only typical. All along the line, in every institution, 
branch and department of the State's service there have 
been like extravagance and mismanagement, until the ex- 



^^ 



15 



penses of our State Goveninieiit for these two years have 
airgregated the unprecedented sum of .^7,l(So,2()^5, or |785,- 
47o niore than the cost of my second term, and |968,902 
more than the cost of my first term. During my adminis- 
tration we finished and furnished the Toledo xA.sylum, re- 
built an imi)()rtant portion of the Cleveland Asylum that 
was destroyed by fire, built and furnished the Soldiers' and 
^Sailors' Home at Sandusky, continued the construction of 
the Intermediate Penitentiary at Mansfield, and established 
and equip})ed the Working Home for the Blind at Iberia. 
These were all extraordinary expenditures, amounting to 
nearly one million dollars, and on these accounts our appro- 
priations were necessarilv lar2:elv increased over what they 
would otherwise have been. 

During Governor Cam})beirs administration no institu- 
tions have been either built or rebuilt, and, except the con- 
struction of the Intermediate Penitentiary, which has been 
C(jntinued, no occasion has arisen for any important extra- 
ordinary appropriations. His expenditures should there- 
fore have been considerably less than during either of my 
terms, but instead we see them swelled to almost a million 
dollars in excess. 

In his speech of acceptance. Governor Campbell, defend- 
ing on this point, stated that |60,0(X) had been appropriated 
in one item to provide farmers with the result of agricultur- 
al experiments ; that :|2(X),00() had been appropriated for 
the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' Home ; that his expen- 
ditures had not exceeded his income, and that he had re- 
duced taxation more than $50CI,000 per year by the repeal 
of the sinking fund levy. 

The first two of these statements are utterly unwarranted. 
Xo such appropriations were made. At least a diligent 
search has failed to discover any such items. Instead of 
$60,(X)0 for the benefit of farmers, only ^1,600, all told, can 
be said to have been appropriated on that account ; and for 
the Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans" Home not one dollai* 
was appropriated, except to defray its current expenses and 
to make ordinary repairs and less than the usual improve- 



16 

merits and additions. The other two statements have some 
color of truth, but not any of the substance. In no way can 
it be shown that his income has exceeded his expenditures, 
except by counting as a part of his income the |1, 300,000 
refunded by the U. S. Government on account of the direct 
war tax ; and the repeal of the sinking fund levy was solely 
due to the fact that |1,000,0(X) of the direct tax money was 
placed to the credit of the sinking fund. And yet such a 
defense, worse than none at all, is the best he can make. If 
the people of Ohio would not have their State Government 
bankrupted, they must excuse Mr. Campbell, as they excused 
each of his Democratic predecessors at the end of one term. 
Turning now to National politics, it is but of little mo- 
ment to have political discussion, unless Ave first have it 
settled that when the argument is closed, we are to have an 
honest vote. For this reason the question of 

A FREP] BALLOT AND A FAIR COUXT 

Remains, and will continue, the first most important and most 
sacred question of American politics, until the blackest 
man of the South can go to the polls as freely, and exercise 
his ridit of suffrage as safelv and elfectivelv as the whitest 
man in the North. I have no patience w^ith the policy that 
ignores this issue, and have no faith in the idea that such a 
wrong will right itself. The last election disclosed the fact 
that the South is more solid to-day than it has been at any 
time since Appomattox. We owe it to American institu- 
tions to put an end to these abuses upon the right of suf- 
frage, but we especially owe it to the loyal American citizens, 
both black and white, who are denied their rights, to make 
them secure in their enjoyment. Give us a free ballot and a 
fair count, and that, of itself, will settle at once and forever 
both the silver and tariff questions. We are menaced by 
the heresies of Democracv onlv because we allow them to 
practice fraud and violence, and thereby secure majorities 
in Congress to which they are not entitled. But I allude to 
it now only to keep the question in mind, and to give it the 



V 

17 

rank to which it is entitled. I shall discuss it further at 
another time. 

SILVER QUESTION. 

The silver and tariff questions have been given special 
prominence. These questions have been elaborately dis- 
cussed by Senator Sherman and Major McKinley. These 
gentlemen are respectively and pre-eminently the masters 
of these subjects. Their treatment has been so exhaustive 
that nothing remains to be said except only to reinforce, if 
that be possible, the thoughts they have presented. In the 
hope that I may say something that will have this effect, I 
invite your attention to these topics: 

The Democratic party has declared in favor of the free 
and unlimited coinage of silver. The Republican party 
stands upon the act of July 14, 1890, which provides that 
the Government shall purchase silver bullion each month 
to the amount of 4,500,000 ounces, if that much should be 
offered, at the market price, and issue therefor its legal ten- 
der certiticates, payable in coin. 

It is essential to an intelligent comprehension of the is- 
sue thus presented to recall the history of silver coinage, 
and the legislation we have had with respect thereto. It 
must also be understood that by the term "free coinage" is 
meant that anybody, no matter who, whether a citizen of 
this country or of any other, having silver bullion shall have 
the privilege of taking it to the mints of the United States, 
and there having it coined into silver dollars, and returned 
to him as such; and that by "unlimited coinage" is meant 
that all the silver so presented must be so coined, no matter 
how much of it there may be. It may also help us, in the 
determination of this question, to remember that the use or 
purpose of money is simply to facilitate exchanges and 
business transactions. In other words, it is not a merchant- 
able commodity, to be bought and sold as other property, 
but only as a measure of values. It is manifestly of the 
highest importance that a measure of value shall be uniform 
and unchangeable, and therefore it is, and always has been, 



ii 



18 



in all civilized countries, one of the highest special preroga- 
tives of government, to authoriz-e, prescribe and protect the 
money that the people shall use. 

ccordingly, it was provided in Ifhe Constitution of the 
United States that Congress should have the power to coin 
money and regulate the value thereof, and that no State 
should have any such power. And hence it was one of the 
first duties of Congress, after the Constitution was adopted,^ 
to provide, not money, but for money; and in this behalf 
the first question that arose was of what should money be 
coined. The character of both gold a nd silver was carefully 
considered. It was obvious that gold was so valuable that 
it would not answer for subsidiary coins. A gold dollar 
was so small that it could not be satisfactorily and safely 
handled. Silver would answer much better, not only for the 
dollar, but especially for the halves, quarters, dimes and 
half dimes. For this reason, among others, some of which 
were of more importance, it was determined to use both 
metals. The next step was to adopt a standard of value, 
and for the purpose ot* coinage, fix the ratio between gold 
and silver. Then and thus it was the American silver dol- 
lar had its origin. To be brief, it was provided that the 
dollar should be the unit of value, and that it should be 
made of what was denominated standard silver, or nine parts 
pure silver and one part copper, and that it should contain 
412J grains troy weight, or 371.25 grains pure silver, with 
halves, quarters, dimes and half-dimes in proper proportion. 
At the same time it was estimated that one ounce of gold 
was woi-th about fifteen ounces of silver. It was thereupon 
determined that the ratio of value between gold and silver 
should be one to fifteen for the purposes of coinage, and that 
gold coins should contain respectively one-fifteenth the num- 
ber of grains in a silver dollar for each dollar rej^resented 
in the coin. In other words, a gold dollar contained 24.75 
grains pure gold, while a ten dollar gold piece contained 
247.50 grains, and so on. 

Thus it will be seen that while our fathers provided for 
tlie use of both metals as money, they also provided that 



T 



19 



they should be of the same intrinsic a' alue. It does not ap- 
pear to have ever occurred to them that a gokl and silver 
dollar wouK-^ keep company and circulate, side by side, un- 
less they wtre of equal intrinsic value. The same notion 
still prevailed in 1834, when, tinding that gold had been 
undervalued and that the ratio of one to sixteen would be 
more accurate, the coinage laws were so amended as to make 
that the ratio and to change all gold coins by lightening 
them to correspond. It is im]iortant to note this act, par- 
ticularly, because it shows, in the first place, that it was the 
idea of the fathers to have one dollar intrinsically the equal 
of the other, and in the second place, that all necessary 
chana-es should be made, not in the silver dollar, but with 
reference to it. 

But the next questu)n was as to the terms of coinage, 
whether free and unlimited, or otherwise. We were a 
young, new country, with but little money and without gold 
and silver mines, so far as we then had knowledge. There 
was no danger of suddenly getting too much money, and no 
probability of any material changes coming about speedily 
in the relative values. It seemed wise, therefore, to encourage 
the coinage of both metals, and accordingly the coinage of 
both was made free and unlimited; and so the matter stood 
from the beginning of our Government down to the act of 
February 12, 1873. In other words, during all that period 
we had free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver, 
in the ratio of one to fifteen, down to 183-4, and from that 
time on in the ratio of one to sixteen. Notwithstanding the 
mints were thus opened, there was but little coinage of silver 
dollars. From 1793 to 1873, a period of eighty years, only 
eight millions of silver dollars were coined, and the most re- 
liable authorities estimate that seven millions of these had 
gone out of circulation and been reconverted into bullion, or 
used in silver manufacture. 

In the cauise for this we have a lesson for the ])resent. 
Prior to 1834, while gold was undervalued, and therefore 
worth more as bullion than in coin, only silver, the cheaper 
coin, would circulate, and toward the close of the period, 



20 

after the ratio was changed, and after the discovery of gold 
in California, the silver bullion contained in a silver dollar 
canie to be worth more than the coined dollar. At the time 
when the act of 1873 was passed, the silver in a silver dollar 
was worth, as bullion, about one hundred and three cents. 
The 375.25 grains of fine silver necessary to make a silver 
dollar was worth three cents more as bullion than as coin. 
The consequence was that nobody having silver bullion 
wanted it coined, since this was only to make it less valua- 
ble ; and nobody having silver coins in any quantity would 
part with them as such, preferring to reconvert them into 
bullion for the sake of the enhanced price that could be thus 
commanded. Hence silver bullion was not oifered for coinage, 
and coins found in circulation were withdrawn and recon- 
verted into bullion. In other words, the cheaper coin, which 
was then gold, was continually driving out of circulation the 
dearer coin, which was then silver. The principle was the 
same that operated prior to 1834, but the operation was re- 
versed. Such was the case when Congress passed the act 
of February 12, 1873. By this act the coinage of the 
standard silver dollar was suspended. To use an apt ex- 
pression that has been applied to the transaction, silver was 
demonetized. It is this act the Democrats refer to when, in 
their platform, they "denounce the demonetization of silver 
in 1873 by the party then in power.'' From this language 
it would be inferred that the act of 1873 was a Republican 
measure. It was not anything of the kind. It was neither 
a Democratic nor a Repu-blican measure. It was a non- 
partisan measure. It was voted for by both parties. 

Political lines were not drawn in respect to it. The truth 
is that outside of a limited few nobody knew anything about 
the measure, in Congress or out of Congress. But the day 
was not far distant when attention was to be directed to it. 
Scarcely had the act taken its place on the statute books 
when we discovered the great silver mines of the West. 
The consequent increase of the supply of silver dej^reciated 
its relative value. Soon 371.25 grains of fine silver was not 
worth as bullion one hundred cents in gold. Instead of a 



^ / 



21 

three-per-cent. premium, there was soon a three-per-cent. 
discount. The production of the mines continued to in- 
crease and the value of sih^er to decrease, until the intrinsic 
value of a silver dollar was, in gold, but ninety-three cents. 
When, however, silver was at an appreciable discount with 
gold it again became desirable, because profitable, to coin 
it. But when the bullion was offered at the mints for coin- 
age it was found that the coinage of the standard silver dol- 
lar had been susj^ended. Immediately there was a demand 
for its restoration. The bullion producer demanded it be- 
cause with free coinage he would not only have a market 
for his product, but a profit in thus disposing of it. With 
free coinage he could get a silver dollar for each 371.25 
grains of bullion, no matter how much less than a dollar it 
might be worth. The tax-paying classes, who were then 
feeling keenly the burden of the war debt, demanded it be- 
cause the Government's obligation was to pay according to 
the terms of the bonds, and they provided for payment in 
coin, and that meant silver as well as gold; and hence they 
had a right, both legal and equitable, to whatever benefit 
might arise from the silver discoveries. The great mass of 
the American people, aside from the considerations men- 
tioned, joined in the demand because of the impression uni- 
versally prevailing that the act of demonetization, if not 
surreptitiously passed, was at least a grave mistake. 

The opponents of remontization urged that the value of 
silver bullion had declined to such an extent that it would 
be impossible to maintain a silver dollar and a gold dollar, 
side by side; and as an additional argument they insisted 
that it would be a breach of faith to restore the silver dollar 
and make it a legal tender for the payment of debt, puV)lic 
or private, contracted after the act of 1873. Notwithstand- 
ing these objections, Congress enacted a law restoring the 
silver dollar, but restricting and limiting its coinage. It 
refused free coinage, and in lieu thereof, provided that the 
Government should purchase the bullion and coin it, as its 
own, for the reason that thereby the profit of the transaction 
would go, not to the bullion holder, but to the Government, 



22 

for the benefit of the whole people ; and it limited the coin- 
age by providing that not more than four, and not less than 
two millions of dollars should be coined each month. This 
was done upon the theory that a limited amount of silver 
dollars could be maintained at par with gold dollars, al- 
though of less intrinsic value ; the belief being that the fiat 
of the Government would make good that difference; and 
as to contracts made subs.cquent to 1873, it was thought by 
those favoring the measure, that there would not bo any 
breach of faith, for the reason that it was proposed to main- 
tain the silver dollar at par with gold. 

President Hayes shared the views of the opposition, and 
when the act was passed, vetoed it. but it was passed over 
his veto, and became a law on the 28th day of February, 
1878. Thus it w\as that silver was demonetized in 1873, 
when a silver dollar was worth one hundred and three cents 
in gold, and remonetized in 1878, when a silver dollar was 
worth only ninety-three cents in gold. 

Since then we have coined more than 400,0()(),(X)() of sil- 
ver dollars, and, so far as known, not one dollar of it all 
has ever been rec-onverted into bullion. It is all in exis- 
tence, because that is its most valuable form, but the major 
portion of it is not in circulation, but stacked up in the 
vaults of the treasury. It is good for reserve purj^oses 
and to represent balances, but it is too cumbersome to cir- 
culate freely in such an enormous quantity. Of the !|4n0,- 
000,(K)0 so coined, as above stated, more than |3()(),0a),tX)0 
are constantly lying idle in the vaults of the treasury. 

The most thoughtful men in both parties have opposed 
coinage under the act of 1878 at a faster rate than the min- 
imum, provided by that law, of |2,(X)0,()00 per month, rea- 
lizing that the time was rapidly approaching when the 
amount coined would be so great that unless something 
should happen to appreciate the value of silver, the fiat of 
the Government would not be sufficient to bridge over the 
difference in values and maintain silver on a parity with 
gold. Such, notably, were the views and policy of the 
Cleveland administration. The reason is the same that led 



^^3 
23 

the friends of the greenbacks, who favored their issue as a 
war measure, to insist upon the amount being limited to a 
sum that woukl not tax too heavily the credit and the fiat 
power of the Government. But, while this tremendous 
coinage of silver dollars has been going on, the relative val- 
ue of silver has still further greatly depreciated. At one 
time during the Cleveland administration it touched as low 
a point as seventy cents. Finally, it was felt that with 
such a wide difference between the values of gold and silver 
dollars, it was not safe to continue the coinage of silver as 
provided by the act of 1878.' Both parties were practically 
agreed uj^on this. The problem was how to avoid evils 
threatened by continuing coinage under that act, utilize sil- 
ver for money purpuses,"afford a market for our own product 
and, at the same time, maintain both coins on a parity. In 
this emergency, the Democrats proposed free and unlimited 
coinage. The Republicans enacted, as their solution of the 
question, the act of July 14, 1890. The question that comes 
home now to every voter is, which is the wiser and better 
proposition ? 

It is solely a business question. There is nothing con- 
nected with it to appeal to prejudice. It should be dispassion- 
ately considered and answered. AVe object to free coinage 
bocfiuse that means an unwarranted gratuity to the bullion 
holder of about twenty-three cents on each dollar coined. 
IIo^ niucli this would amount to can be better appreciated 
when it is remembered that upon the ^40(),(X)0,0(X) coined 
since 1878, it has amounted to |74,489,(XX). Had coinage 
been free this great sum would have gone, without any 
Cijuivalent value to anybody therefor, into the pockets of 
the silver owner, but inuler the act of 1878, the Govern- 
ment got the benefit of it. Every dollar of it went into 
the treasury for the benefit of tlie whole people. We think 
that was wise, and that to the extent coinage may be con- 
tinued, it sliould be by the Government purchasing the bul- 
lion and thus continuing the beneficiary of the transaction. 

Bullion is not money. Until coined, it is but a mercan- 
tile commoditv, and the owner should have for it what it is 



1^ 



24 



worth ill the market, but no more. It has been well said 
that you might as well provide by law that the farmer 
should have twenty-three cents more per bushel for his 
wheat than it is worth in the market as that a man should 
have twenty-three cents more for each dollar's worth of his 
bullion than it is worth in the market. The proposition is 
so inequitable and unbusinesslike that its mere statement 
overthrows it. 

In the second place, to open our mints to free and unlim- 
ited coinage, would be to offer - a premium to make this 
country the dumping ground, as it has been termed, for the 
silver of the world, and thus bring upon ourselves a deluge 
that would still further depreciate its value and drive gold 
entirely out of circulation and out of the country. The re- 
sult would be that all who would buy of us from abroad 
would pay in silver, and all from whom we would purchase 
would exact payment in gold: As Major McKinley has 
well said, we would be driven to do business not only with 
a single coin, but with a short dollar, and with this short 
dollar labor would be paid, pensions would be paid, and 
necessarily all business would have to be readjusted upon a 
short basis. We would not have as a compensation even 
an increase of money. On the contrary, we would have 
less, since all siold would be driven out of circulation, and 
silver would remain as cumbersome as it is now. W e 
would have only one coin, and that the cheaper. That such 
would bo the result is shown by the teachings of all the ex- 
periences of the world, our own included. The Republican 
party believes in the use of both gold and silver ias money, 
and proposes to keep both not only in existence, but in cir- 
culation. To this end the provisions of the act of July 14, 
189C), are directed. They avoid making ourselves a market 
for the silver of the world, and avoid offering a premium 
for brinmno; the same to our shores. What we do take is 
but a limited amount, intended to be large enough to con- 
sume our own product, and for that we pay no more than it 
is worth, and we pay that in legal tender paper, redeema- 
ble in gold as well as silver. This paper is therefore as 



4^^ 



25 

good for all the purix>s6S of money as the gold itself, and 
being such, it goes at once not into the vaults of the treas- 
ury, there to be stacked up by the cord, but into circulation, 
there to do an important service by increasing the currency, 
inspiring trade and facilitating the business transactions of 
the country. The position we have thus assumed is a i)lain 
one. It may not be the best that can be devised, but it is 
honest. It is prompted by good, sound business sense. At 
the same time, it is characteristic of the Republican party. 
It is in keejnng with our past record, and that is saying a 
great deal, for it is conceded by all men that the financial 
achievements of the Republican party are the most brilliant 
in the history of the world. Under such circumstances it 
is difficult to believe any Republican will hesitate to trust 
the judgment of his party, or that any intelligent Democrat 
will feel bound by the ill-advised action of his. 

The nomination of Major McKinley has given special 
prominence to the question of 

PROTECTIOX. 

My time is so limited 1 can do little more than merely 
state the necessity and purposes of the doctrine. The neces- 
sity may be one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow. 
We need a protective tariff now, because of the diff^erence in 
wages paid here and in other countries. We pay more than 
anybody else, therefore we can not compete with other 
countries, even in our own markets, unless we in some 
manner bridge over that difference. Rut how shall we d« 
that? We can not comi>el other countries to raise their 
wages and we are unwilling to reduce ours. Wg get over 
the difficulty and maintain our industries and our standard 
of wages by re([uiring the foreigner who comes here to sell 
his wares to pay the difference in tariff duties between his 
wages and ours. Rut while a protective tariff is necessary 
to-day, because of this dift'erem-o in wages, it was not always 
so. In the early days of the Ropuldic we had just as much 
need for a protective tariff' as we have now. But it was not 



^L 



26 



because we paid higher wages, for then we did not. At 
that time we paid as low wages as were paid in any other 
country. We had slavery, and that meant not only slave 
labor, but the debasement, cheapening and degradation oi 
all labor. So far as that iteni of manufacturing cost was 
concerned, nobody then had any advantage of us. The 
trouble was of a different kind. We were young and poor. 
We had no large aggregations of capital ; we had no skilled 
artisans; we had no established plants. Our industries 
were all infants; and all England had to do to g?t rid of them 
was to crush them as such, and that she could do in the 
absence of protective duties by simply flooding our markets 
with her goods at less than cost until we were bankrupted. 

THE PURPOSES OF A PROTECTIVE TARIFF 

are many. In the first place, they are necessary to maintain 
the American standard of wages. We have striking illus- 
trations here at home, now and then, of the evil effects of 
cheap and degraded labor. Only a few weeks ago the atten- 
tion of the whole country was turned upon 

BRICEVILLE, 

a small mining town in Tennessee, named in honor of our 
distinguished Senator who resides in Xew York, and who, 
it has been said, is interested in the mining operations there 
carried on. A serious controversy had arisen between the 
honest toiling miners of that hx^-ility and the officers of the 
law. Bloodshed was threatened ; a riot was imminent. The 
Governor of the State repaired in person to the scene of 
action. His visit resulted in an agreement that the miners 
would desist from the violence they contemplated until the 
Governor could convene the Legislature in extra session to 
legislate with respect to the grievances. The Legislature is 
now in session. So far it has got no further along than to 
pass a law authorizing the Governor whenever there is 
another outbreak of the kind to order out the militia to shoot 



the miners into peace iind servility. Wliat further this 
Democratic Legislature will do in the Democratic State of 
Tennes:>ee with respect to the Democratic system of leasing 
convicts is not known. But the ])oint of the whole matter 
is that all this excitement and threatened riot, bloodshed 
and destruction of proi)erty were due to the fact that the 
East Tennessee Mining Company was undertaking to work 
in its mines a lot of penitentiary convicts. The result was 
to displace an equal number of honest miners, reduce the 
wages of those who were retained, and degrade all labor as 
such. 

Jt was an unjust competition and the miners ])roperly and 
indignantly resented it. They demanded that the convicts 
be removed and that the laws of the State be so amended as 
to abolish the system of leasing convicts, and thus prevent 
the mine owners of Briceville fioni subjecting honest labor 
to such competition and degradation. But in doing this 
they were simply demanding protection for themselves, 
their families and the honor of their occupation. What the 
Republican })arty demands for the laborer of this cinmtry is 
precisely the same thing in princijde. A\'e are unwiljing 
that the wages of our lal)<.>rers shall be reduced to the levels 
that exist abroad. W^e would save them from that injustice 
and wrong. We believe the laborer is worthy of his hire, 
and that his hire should be enough to support himself and 
his family and enable him to educate his children and thus 
prepare them to make good and patriotic citizens. 

In the second jdace, we believe that our country should 
be as independent of every other country as our natural re- 
sources, propei-ly develo])ed, will allow. To this end, we 
should mine our own coal, manufacture our own iron, grow 
our own wool, make our own clothing, and, in short, supply 
every want to the full extent our opportunities will admit, 
without calling upon anybody else. 

In the third place, our own peojde should have the bene- 
fit of a diversity of employment, aiul of that intellectual 
develo})ment that belongs to the skilled mechanic, the artisan 
and the expert laborer. 



^^ 



28 



In the fourth place, we want the benefit of home markets. 
It is not enough for our farmers to have good farms and 
raise good crops. They want some place to sell what they 
raise. They want a market, and the nearer at hand and 
the more reliable it is the better. Our home market, that 
takes ninety-two per cent, of all the agricultural products 
of the country, and takes them from the very fields on 
which they are grown, is the best of all markets. We be- 
lieve in maintaining it. 

In the fifth place, the protective tarifi^ policy is a wise 
policy. We have had repeated experiences with both free 
trade and protection. Without exception, free trade has 
brought us business paralysis, idleness, poverty and distress, 
while protection has uniformly brought business activity, 
the em2)loyment of both labor and capital, the development 
of our industries and consequent wealth, prosperity and 
happiness. 

The McKinley law is the formulated expression of all 
these ideas and purposes, and more, too. It goes .further 
and 23rovides for 

RECIPROCITY. 

The third section of the act is in the following language: 

"Section 3. That with a view to secure reciprocal trade 
with countries producing the following articles, and for this 
purpose, on and after the first day of January, 1892, when- 
ever and so often as the President shall be satisfied that 
the Government of any country producing and exporting 
sugars, molasses, cofi'ee, tea and hides, raw and uncured, or 
any of such articles imposes duties or other exactions upon 
the agricultural or other products of the United States, 
which in view of the free introduction of such sugar, molas- 
ses, coffee, tea and hides into the United States he may 
deem reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have 
the power and it shall be his duty to suspend, by proclama- 
tion to that eit'ect, the provisions of this act relating to the 
free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coifee, tea and 



29 

hides, the production of sueli country, for such time as he 
shall deem just, and in such case and during such suspen- 
sion duties shall be levied, collected, and paid upon sugar, 
molasses, cotfee, t€a and hides, the product of or exported 
from such designated country." 

Then follows a list of duties prescribed to be imposed in 
such contingency. 

The Democrats pretend that this provision is a step to- 
ward free trade. If so, they ought to favor it. But it is 
not anything of the kind. On the contrary it is in. strict 
harmony with the policy of protection. It might as well be 
said that to admit tea and cotfee free of duty, as we have 
been doing for many years, was inconsistent with protec- 
tion. We levy protective tariif duties only that we may 
shield ourselves from unjust competition, and thereby 
enable ourselves to develop our own resources. But when 
it comes to articles that we do not produce, or can not 
produce in sufficient quantities to meet our wants, then 
we either admit those articles entirely free of duty, or 
subject to only a revenue duty. We never levy a pro- 
tective tariff dutv in such cases. 

This reciprocal provision is intended to give us protec- 
tion when we go abroad. Our home market is our main 
reliance for both agricultural and manufactured ])roducts 
but of both we have each year a large surplus, which we 
sell in foreign markets, subject to such duties and restric- 
tions as each country may see fit to impose. In many in- 
stances these are so burdensome that we can not pay them 
and compete with the products of England and other coun- 
tries where cheap labor is employed. They undersell^ us 
there as they do here in the absence of protection. What 
we want is protection against such a disadvantage.^ There- 
fore, we say to these countries that desire to come into ours, 
with the products named in this reciprocal clause, tliat we 
are willing to have them do so, provided they will, in turn, 
while continuing to make other countries pay, admit our ag- 
ricultural and other products into their markets fre«, or sub- 
jest to only fair and reasonable duties. Our proposition is 



^ 



30 

that if they will open their ports to us we will keep ours 
open to them, as to the articles named, and if they will not 
open their markets to us, they shall pay to enter ours ; and 
the basis of the proposition is that we can not compete with 
the underpaid labor of Europe when m'g go.abroad any more 
than when we stay at home. 

The provision is general, applying to all countries, but 
it was framed with special reference to Mexico and Central 
and South America. Heretofore we have been at an unreas- 
onable disadvantage in our trade relations with these coun- 
tries, and we have been getting the worst of it. Our purchases 
from them have annually aggregated more than $200,(300,- 
000, while our sales to them have been little more than 
one-third that amount. And while we have been buying 
nearly three times the amount we have been selling, Eng- 
land, Germany, France and Spain have been selling them 
twice as much as they have been buying from them. The 
consequence has been that we have been furnishing the gold 
to these countries with which to pay the balances against 
them in favor of our competitors. Take for illustration, the 
case of Brazil. For the year 1889 we bought from her to 
the amount of |60,620,047 and sold her only to the 
amount of 110,848,271. The balance against us was $49,- 
771,776, every dollar of which we had to pay in gold. For 
the same year Great Britain sold Brazil to the amount of 
|32,8oO,ot3, and bought from her only to the amount of 
$24,676,211; or, in other words, instead of a balance against 
her of over $49,(X)(\0(K), as was the case with us, she had a 
balance in her favor of $8,174,362. For the same year 
France had a balance in her favor in her trade with Brazil 
of $12,711,973, wliile the balance in favor of Germany was 
$10,213,396. All these balances were paid by Brazil in the 
gold that we paid her in settlement of the heavy balances 
against us; and as it was M'ith Brazil, so, too, in like propor- 
tions it was with Mexico, Cuba and Borto Rico, and each of 
the other South and Central American States. 

A^'hat wo propose is to change that policy. We want the 
balance in our favor, instead of against us. Instead of fur- 



^ / 



31 

nishing these countries with gold t<j be paid by them tu 
European countries, wo want the . Euroj)ean countries to 
furnish them with gold t<jsend to us in discharge of balances 
in our favor. We want to buy from them hereafter more 
than we have bought heretofore, but we want to pay for all 
and a healthy balance in addition, with our wheat, corn, 
pork and other agricultural products ; and along with the 
products of the farm, we want to send them our machinery, 
engines, locomotives, M'agons, carriages, and every other 
kind of manufactured product. What w^e propose will not 
conflict with anv home industrv, interfere with the i)rice we 
pay to labor, or do any injury to our home market. On the 
contrary we hold on to the j^rotecti^e policy in all its 
features and with all its benetits, but reach out for other 
markets in which to dispose of our surplus, by protecting 
ourselves in those markets against the same cheap labor 
that we protect ourselves against at homo. With Jhigland, 
France, Germany and Spain paying the heavy protective 
tariff duties levied by Brazil, and America pjiying r.o duty, 
or only modified rates, the discrepancy in M'ages is at, once 
overcome; we are given a fair chance, and the result will be 
that we can successfully compete with our rivals and increase 
by tens of millions the sale of our products. It has been well said 
that reciprocity is not only protection, but the crowning glory of 
the McKinley law. 

The policy it inaugurated has already gone into successful opera- 
tion. On the 5th day of last February the President issued his 
proclamation announcing that a reciprocal agreement had been 
made with Brazil' under which they are to admit, free of duty, 
wheat, flour, buckwheat, barley, potatoes, beans, peas, hay, oats, 
pork, coal, agricultural implements, mining and mechanical tools, 
stationary and portable engines; and are to make a reduction of 
twenty-five per cent, on bacon, lard, butter and cheese, canned and 
preserved meats, fish, fruits, cotton, manufactures of iron and 
steel, leather, and the manufactures thereof, except boots and shoes, 
lumber, timber and the manufactures of wood, including cooperage, 
furniture of all kinds, wagons, carts, carriages, &c. A similar ar- 
rangement has been made with Cuba, and only a few days ago it 
was announced that an agreement has been reached under another 



^^ 



32 



statute, according to whicn Germany raises the embargo she has so 
long maintained against American pork. Truly, "Peace hath her 
victories no less renowned than war." 

Other like agreements will follow, and thus, hand in hand with 
the development of our home markets, will come a great extension 
of our foreign markets. This is the kind of work the Republican 
party is doing, and this is pre-eminently an era for such statesman- 
ship. The time has come for a broad, bold, aggressive, patriotic, 
American policy — one that will upbuild our strength and honor at 
home, and send American products, in American ships, under the 
American flag, across every sea, and into every port of Christendom. 
The Republican party is equal to this emergency, as it has been 
equal to every other that it has encountered. The party that sup- 
pressed the Rebellion, emancipated the slave, reconstructed the 
Union, preserved our financial honor, and made our paper promises 
as good as gold all around the globe, can be relied upon to deal 
wisely with respect to silver, uphold the standard of American 
wages, develop American resources, and find profitable markets 
for the surplus of American products. It is our highest duty to 
keep this party in power. To this end every Republican in Ohio 
must see to it that he does all he can to prepare the way for victory 
next year by triumphantly electing McKinley and a Republican 
Legislature this year. 



SPEECH 



OF 



Ex=Governor Foraker 



AT THE 



Dedication of the Cuyahoga County Soldiers' 
and Sailors' Monument. 

Cleveland, Ohio, July 4th, 1894. 



Having been introduced by Governor ]\IcKinley, Chairman, 
Ex-Governor Foraker said: 

Fellow-Comrades and Fellow-Citizens: 

"We meet on the Fourth of July to dedicate a ]\Ionument. to 
the memory of the heroes of our last AVar. The day and the 
occasion unite to recall both the Revolution and the Rebellion. 
These struggles had a distinct relation to each other, and were 
strickingly similar in some respects. 

The last was but the complement of the first. It wrought for 
the black man what the first accomplished for the white. 

Both began as rebellions. Both had relation to natural, govern- 
mental and human rights. There was no question of territory, 
balance of power or international statecraft or diplomacy in 
either. 

Both broadened as they proceeded, until the issues finally 
joined and determined were different, higher and bettor than 
those involved at the beginning. 



— 2 — 

It was not until after Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill 
that the Colonists resolved to convert a struggle that was inaug- 
urated only as an armed resistance to a tyrannical Ministry into 
a war against the Crown for national independence. 

As late as the 6th day of July, 1775, the Continental Con- 
gress formally declared that they had not raised armies with the 
ambitious design of separating from Great Britian, and estab- 
lishing independent states. 

It was not until after Bull Run. Donelson and Shiloh that 
the overruling purpose of a directing Providence was recog- 
nized, and a war for the suppression of rebellion was broadened 
into a war for the liberation of the slave. 

The Colonists were not only subjects of Great Britain, but 
they were loyal subjects. They desired to remain such, but 
He who directs the destiny of all decreed otherwise. The time 
had come not only for the birth of a new Nation, but for a new 
kind of government. The feudal age had passed away, and the 
unwritten constitution of England had been established, but 
the despotic powers of the old Barons had been assumed by the 
monarchy that followed, and the boasted rights of Englishmen, 
although defined by Magna Charta and protected by a represen- 
tative Parliament, were, nevertheless, not such as to allow that 
independence of thought and action essential to the highest in- 
tellectual and moral development. 

It was necessary to give a broader recognition than had ever 
been accorded of the rights of man with respect to government, 
not only in England and her colonies, but throughout the world. 
America was destined to light the torch of liberty and lead the 
fight for human freedom. It was not of her choice, but of God's 
ordering. She was the chosen agency, and it was through aggres- 
sions and exasperations that ripened into controversy, bitter- 
ness and blood, with their irrestible teachings and demands, 
that our fathers were finally brought to see both their oppor- 
tunity and their duty. Then it was that the Declaration of 
July 6, 1775, gave way to the Declaration of Independence of 
July 4, 1776. 

This document was a state paper worthy of a great people. 
It lent importance and gave dignity and consequence to the 



— 3 — 

cause of the Colonists. It excited the admiration of the whole 
world, and strenghtened and encouraged the weak and hesitating. 
It put into the hearts of all aims and purposes that involved 
the highest interests of humanity. From that moment forward 
the fight was not for the redress of wrongs under the British 
Government, but for absolute independence, and a new and 
different government of their own making. What that govern- 
ment should be they did not then see or comprehend. After 
more than a century of successful experience, our form of govern- 
ment seems to us most natural, and as though it would be the 
first thought of, but it was not so with our fathers. They had no 
such light as we enjoy. When they determined to fight for in- 
dependence, it was without any clear idea as to the kind of govern- 
ment they would adopt, except only that it should be of their 
own making and subject to their own control. They reached 
final results by slow stages in the school of experience. 

British oppression had made them so distrustful of all au- 
thority superior to their own immediate colonial governments, 
that they were prejudiced against, and bitterly hostile to, all 
propositions that involved the establishment of any permanent 
controlling national authority or power. 

The Continental Congress had scarcely more than the sem- 
blance of authority. There was no constitution, no judiciary, no 
executive, and no power of any kind lodged anywhere to com- 
pel anybody to do anything. But it was the first step toward a 
centralization that could represent the national name and force, 
and in the selection of a Commander-in-chief, the adoption of 
the Declaration of Independence, and by similar acts, resolutions 
and legislation, it familiarized the people with the idea of unity 
of country and interests, a common flag and a common destiny. 

The Articles of Confederation followed. They were intended 
to establish a common or National Government and define its 
powers. They were another step, but not a very long one, in 
the right direction. Americans had not yet accepted the idea 
of a permanent national authority. Therefore, while recogniz- 
ing the necessity for union under a common government, based 
on a written, organic law, they were unwilling to act, except as 
independent States, and would not agree to any form of govern- 



— 4 — 

merit unless the individual independence or autonomy of each 
State was recognized and protected. They were so solicitious 
upon this point that but little else was successfully embodied in 
that document. The government it established had no executive, 
no judiciary, no revenue system, no machinery, functions or 
power. All legislative and executive action was vested in the 
Congress, in which the members voted and acted, not as repre- 
sentatives of the people, but as delegates of the States; and no 
proposed act of legislation could become a law without the 
votes and consent of a prescribed number of the States. The 
States were everything; the National Government was practi- 
cally nothing. Its inadequacy was manifest from the beginning. 
Dissatisfaction followed and increased until all the common 
people, as well as the great men and statesmen of that time, were 
studying and discussing theories of government. The result was 
a convention to revise the x\rticles of Confederation. This body 
was well prepared for its work. Its members had lived under and 
had studied the English constitution and common law. They 
had passed through all the exciting experiences of the struggle 
for independence. They had been witnesses to the weakness of 
the Continental Congress and the inefficiency of the Confeder- 
ation. They had been educated by these trials to appreciate the 
fact that no government could be successful that was not in- 
vested with all the necessary powers of preservation. They 
understood that any government must prove a failure which was 
unable to not only legislate, but enforce legislation, to raise reve- 
nues, maintain armies, and do all other things essential to 
sovereignty in its broadest and highest sense. They had learned 
something more from these experiences. They had learned that 
no national government could ever be successfully established 
and maintained that was a creature of the States, or that was a 
mere compact or agreement between the States. As to whatever 
power it might have, it should be independent of and su- 
preme over States and people alike. When they reached this 
point in their deliberations, they boldly resolved to set aside the 
Articles of Confederation which they had been appointed to re- 
vise, and discard the theory of a league or compact. They recog- 
nized that the people of all the States were the proper source 



— 5 — 

and origin of all rightful authority, and determined to frame 
a constitution in the name of the people, and for the people, and 
to submit it to the people for their approval and adoption. The 
result was the Constitution of 1787, of which ^Ir. Gladstone has 
said : "It is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given 
time by the brain and purpose of man." 

Its general scheme was a Federal Government of three co- 
ordinate, independent departments. Time has shown this to be 
a most happy distribution of power. It has met with such uni- 
versal favor that no one has ever thought to change it. 

When they came to details, aside from slavery and certain 
particulars in which it was amended soon after adoption, the 
framers were scarcelj^ less fortunate. 

We are a restless, aggressive and progressive people, impatient 
of all restraint. It is not singular, therefore, that there is now 
and then complaint against some provision that may, for the 
time being, come in contact with our desires, but we seldom 
have to wait long for transpiring events and changing conditions 
tx) answer our objections. 

Just at present the Senate is much criticised, but investigation 
has developed the fact that the trouble is with individuals rather 
than the body, and the people can be trusted to make such 
changes as will enable it to regain its accustomed dignity, effi- 
ciency, integrity and popularity. 

Of late years we have heard much about election disturbances, 
and to avoid having them too frequently it has been proposed, 
with much show of support at times, to change the Presidential 
term to six years, but we have probably heard the last of this de- 
mand, for it is now pretty generally conceded that four years 
are quite long enough. 

And so it is that the longer it stands the better we become 
satisfied with it. 

But the most important feature of the Constitution, for the 
purposes of this occasion, is found in the following stately decla- 
rations of its preamble : 

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more 
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, 
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare 



^i 



6 — 



and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States 
of America." 

These are golden words. They are worthy of the Convention 
presided over by George Washington. They constitute the 
great, broad foundation-stone upon which rest all the govern- 
mental institutions of America. 

Upon them Webster stood master in argument. Inspired by 
them Lincoln was immovable in administration, and Grant was 
invincible in war. AVhen we recall them, and the history lead- 
ing up to them, it seems incredible that we should ever have had 
serious differences, let alone war, as to whether or not a State of 
this Union had a constitutional right of succession. 

And yet. incredible as it may seem, such was the fact. The 
trouble was not to understand the language that had been em- 
ployed, for that was unmistakably plain. It arose from the fact 
that we had two kinds of civilization — one freedom, and the other 
slavery — one established in the Northern States, and the other 
in the Southern States, and the Constitution undertook to com- 
promise their differences and protect and perpetuate both. That 
was possible for the time being, but impossible as a permanent 
provision. Their intiuences were at fatal war with each other. 
They could not peaceably co-exist. What ]\Ir. Seward character- 
ized as an irrepressible conflict was inevitable. It came, and it 
was early foreseen that we would have no cessation of the con- 
test until we became either all slave or all free. The rivalry 
naturally took the form of a struggle for political power. The 
great question was whether freedom or slaver.y, the North or the 
South, should control the destinies of the Nation. 

At first, slavery was in the ascendency, but the North out- 
grew the South in population and material development. The 
South sought to maintain her control by regulating the ad- 
mission of new States, by the acquisition of Texas and other terri- 
tory, and by threats and menaces whereby compromises were se- 
cured and friendly legislation was enacted. Despite all these 
helps she steadily lost ground until it soon became apparent that 
it was only a question of time when she could no longer con- 
trol. She was represented by able men. They were far-seeing. 



— 7 — 

They professed to believe in slavery, that cotton was king, and 
that there was no safety for them, except they shonld govern. 
Foreseeing the time when they could no longer rule, they de- 
liberately conspired to ruin. In this behalf they revived the 
doctrine of State sovereignty, which had been destroyed by the 
abrogation of the Articles of Confederation, and made it a cardi- 
nal point of their political faith. Their contention was, when 
stated in plain language, that each state had a constitutional 
right to destroy the Constitution. They insisted that any State 
could, lawfully and constitutionally, withdraw from the Union 
whenever it might see fit to do so. This doctrine was an iniqui- 
tious heresy. It was opposed to all ideas of stability and per- 
manency. It meant weakness, confusion and anarchy. It was the 
end of all our progress and power. It meant that this great 
country should be subdivided and Mexicanized. Instead of one 
mighty Republic, we were to have a lot of petty States. In- 
stead of one flag, we were to have two, six, a dozen — no man 
could tell how many. If the South could secede, so could the 
East, the West, the Middle States, or any single State. 

The success of such a doctrine was the end of self-government. 
And what was the purpose ? Why was such a doctrine espoused ? 
Why were such consequences invited? What good was to come 
as a compensation for all these evils? 

No good whatever. The object sought was worse than the 
doctrine invoked. The sole purpose was to protect and per- 
petuate human slavery. 

And what was hmnan slavery? You get no adequate idea of 
the character of that institution from the mere statement that it 
was the holding of human beings in bondage. 

You begin to comprehend its .stupendous wickedness only 
when you think of the auction-block and the whipping-post, 
and recall that it was by law made a crime to teach the slave the 
letters of the alphabet, or administer to him the ordinances of 
marriage and baptism. 

It not only deprived its victims of liberty and exacted from 
them unrequited toil, but it purposely and by provisions of law 
debased and degraded them as nearly as it was possible to the 
ignorance and dependence of animal chattels. 



(.0 



— 8 — 

It had another and an equally bad result. It blunted the 
moral sensibilities of those who believed in it, upheld, defended 
and enjoyed it. 

It is a law of our nature that we can not do conscious WTong 
to others without a corresponding injury to ourselves. There 
is a reflex action which smites the conscience and sears it. 
Slavery inflicted this penalty upon its votaries, and thus pre- 
pared them to allow the horrors and barbarities of Anderson- 
ville, Libby and Salisbury. 

It was simply a vile curse, wicked in itself and wicked in 
all its teachings and influences. 

And yet it was for this the doctrine of State sovereignty "was 
invoked. It was for this the doctrine of secession was instilled. 
It was for this the work of George Washington was to be undone. 
It was for this the flag was to be struck down. It was for this 
the Union was to be dismembered. It was for this the example 
of America governing herself was to be ended in humiliation 
and shame. It was for this the Potomac and Ohio Rivers were 
to be made boundary lines between hostile governments. It was 
for this we were to have at least two countries, two constitutions, 
two presidents, two flags and two destinies. 

They argued long and fiercely, but the people decided against 
them. The verdict was rendered at the ballot box in 1860, when 
they elected Abraham Lincoln. He was chosen to administer 
according to the Constitution and the laws. Under these, slavery 
was secure w^herever it existed. There was no purpose to inter- 
fere with it. ]\Ir. Lincoln so announced. The official utterances 
of the political party he represented so declared. Every as- 
surance was given that all rights of person and property would 
be respected. But all in vain. The leaders would not abide the 
result. They would not accept guarantees. They were deaf to 
entreaty. They would not listen to either argument or persua- 
sion. The time had come against which the conspirators had con- 
spired. They could no longer rule; they proceeded to ruin. 
State after State declared itself out of the Union, joined the 
Southern Confederacy and engaged in preparations for war. 

The loyal people of the North were slow to believe they in- 
tended what they professed. They could not think it possible 



— 9 — 

they would take the last fatal step. Until the last moment they 
had confidence there would be no blood shed. Their hope was 
in vain. On the 12th day of April, 1861, the opening gun was 
fired. A more causeless war never was. No war was ever waged 
on more inexcusable legal and moral grounds. It was simply 
treason and rebellion, without the excuse of bad government or 
oppression of any kind to provoke it, for it was war against the 
best government ever instituted among men. It was without 
the excuse of necessity to save from peril any kind of existing 
interest. It had not one single redeeming feature in either its 
origin, its theory, or its purpose. 

This is mentioned with particularity, because with some people 
it seems to have become quite fashionable of late years to try to 
make it appear that after all that great struggle was nothing 
more than a sort of family quarrel, in which one side was as 
much at fault as the other. 

All such talk should be indignantly resented. It is a slander 
upon the brave men to whose memory we dedicate this Monu- 
ment. No braver men ever followed a flag than were the Soldiers 
of the Confederacy. They brought to the support of their cause 
all that valor and devotion could bring, but when it comes to the 
right and wrong of that struggle, there is no room for argument. 
The Union side was altogether and absolutely right, and the other 
side was altogether and absolutely wrong. It is mistaken senti- 
mentali.sm, and unwarranted misrepresentation to say anything 
else. This is not sectionalism, and it is not said in any spirit of 
unkindness. Nobody wants to hurt anybody's feelings, but if 
we miLst give offense, let it be to those whom the truth will 
wound. 

It was not until after the Union had been dissolved, a hostile 
government had been organized, armies had been raised, war de- 
clared and the flag actually fired upon, that the Union cause was 
referred to the sword. 

The people of the North did not want war. They were a peace- 
ful people. They were engaged in business. They had no 
dreams of chivalry. They cared nothing for martial glory 
and distinction. They were willing and anxious to make any 
sacrifice for the sake of peace, consistent with their sense of duty 



{.-y 



— 10 — 

and loyalty, but they were not willing to let the Union perish, 
and if nothing but war would save it, they were ready for the 
dread alternative. The roar of the guns at Fort Sumter had not 
died away until the challenge to battle was accepted. No words 
can exaggerate the outbursts of enthusiasm and the manifesta- 
tions of patriotism that followed. From Maine to California the 
whole loyal land fairly blazed and burned. Flags were every- 
where flying, drums were everywhere beating, volunteers were 
everywhere marching, tears were everywhere streaming. Hus- 
bands said good-bye to their wives, fathers to their children, sons 
to their mothers, and lovers to their sweethearts. From the 
farms, the workshops, the counting-houses, the school-houses, 
from every employment, vocation and calling of our diversi- 
fied social and business worlds, men literally rushed to arms. 
They neither asked for nor thought of rank, pay or position. 
Their only desire or purpose was to suppress rebellion, punish 
treason, maintain the Union and preserve the Constitution. They 
thought only of this great country, with its tremendous possi- 
bilities for good to all mankind, and of their duty to posterity, 
as they turned their backs upon their homes of peace and happi- 
ness, and left behind with their ambitions and aspirations all 
that was near and dear, to do and die if need be, that this Na- 
tion might live. 

History will be searched in vain for the record of greater 
self-sacrifice, a more unselfish patriotism, or a more devoted con- 
secration to duty. No army was ever more representative of the 
people from which it sprang, more distinctly volunteer, or moved 
by nobler impulses. No bitterness, hatred, revenge, or spirit of 
conquest was in any heart. Of all the millions who rallied around 
the flag, not one wanted to take life, or destroy property, except 
as stern duty might require. Every man knew and appreciated 
that he was to fight his own countrymen, not to destroy, but to 
save them. Not because he hated or despised them, and wanted 
to drive them away from us, but because he loved them, and 
loved their country, and wanted them and their country to re- 
main in the Union where our fathers had placed them, to go for- 
ward with us as one people and one country to a common great- 
ness and a conmiou glory. 



— 11 — 

Such Soldiers should have been triumphantly successful from 
the beginning, but for a time they were only partially so. The 
trouble was in the fact that we had two questions to deal with 
when we commenced — one legal, and the other moral — one as to 
how the Constitution should be interpreted, the other what should 
be done about slavery. The law question was ours; the other 
was God's question. 

With man's characteristic selfishness we undertook to confine 
the War to the settlement of our own question, and left God's 
question to shift for itself. 

iMr. Lincoln was careful to announce that he would save the 
Union with slavery if he could — without slavery if he must. 

Accordingly, for the first eighteen months of the War we 
tried to save the Union with slavery. The effort was a failure. 
It was a failure because we were without Divine approbation. 
The Almighty seemed to act, if I may say so without irreverence, 
as though so long as we allowed His question to take care of 
itself. He would allow us to take care of ourselves. He was deaf 
to our prayers. Why should He not be when success meant only 
the preservation and perpetuation of human slavery? 

We were defeated at Bull Run, repulsed at Ball's Bluff, and 
subjected to one kind of disappointment after another, with 
just enough of success now and then interspersed to keep us from 
becoming utterly discouraged, until we were finally brought to 
see that both the necessity and the duty of the hour alike re- 
quired us to broaden the issues, and strike for the destruction of 
the institution which was the mother of secession and the source 
and origin of all our troubles. 

When that hour came, Abraham Lincoln said the bond should 
go free. His proclamation was a second Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. It rang out like an alarm-bell at midnight. It 
challenged the attention and enlisted the sympathy of the right- 
thinking people of the whole world. It exalted and intensi- 
fied the loyalty of all loyal men. It made every sympathizer with 
treason writhe and squirm. It kindled the eye, flushed the cheek, 
nerved the arm and made stouter and braver the heart of every 
Union Soldier and Sailor. 



t^ 



— 12 — 

From that time forward the "War meant something worth pray- 
ing for, fighting for and dying for. The tide turned. The 
navy won victory after victory, and the army swept on with 
irresistible power t« Vicksburg and Gettysburg, Atlanta and the 
Sea, the wilderness and Appomattox. 

But, oh ! how bloody the way ! Comparisons show there has 
been nothing equal to it in modern warfare. At Waterloo, the 
entire loss of Wellington's army, both killed and wounded, was 
less than twelve per cent. Napoleon lost less than fifteen per 
cent, at Austerlitz, and a still smaller percentage at ]\Iorengo, 
Eylau and Wagram, while the average loss on both sides was 
less than thirteen per cent, at Magenta, Solferino. Gravelotte 
and Sedan. In more than one hundred of our battles the losses 
exceeded fifteen per cent., while at Shiloh, Stone River, Chicka- 
mauga, Gettysburg, the Wilderness and Spotsylvania they were 
over thirty per cent., and in some instances more than forty per 
cent. 

It is impossible on such an occasion as this to tell the story of 
such service. It is too long, too pathetic, too heroic and too 
patriotic to be dealt with except only by history. Suffice it to 
say the hardships endured, the valor displayed, the treasure ex- 
pended, and the blood that was shed, are without a parallel in 
the annals of the world. 

As the years go by Ave shall forget the different regiments, 
brigades, divisions, corps, and, in time, even the armies of the 
Potomac, the Cumberland and the Tennessee. Only a few great 
names like those of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and Thomas will 
continue to enjoy individual renown. All the rest of that mighty 
host will become blended into a common rank to be remembered 
only as the great Union Army. 

But while individual names and deeds will be forgotten, the- 
results of their achievements will live. They are enduring as the 
Republic itself. Our heroes fought not for a day, but for all 
time ; not for transient ideas, but for everlasting principles ; not 
to subdue a few dissatisfied States, but for the integrity of our 
whole great empire; not for themselves alone, but for their 
enemies as well, and the proudest and most gratifying thought 
any Union Soldier can have must be that already the time has 



— 13 — 

come when those who met him on the field recognize that his vic- 
tory was their victory as well, and to-day stand pledged to up- 
hold and preserve the Government they then sought to destroy. 
Their triumph brought freedom, peace, prosperity, power and 
promise to all the people of every section of an undivided and in- 
divisible country. 

Cuyahoga County is justly proud of her part in the struggle. 
Her sons bore a conspicuous part on the water and participated 
among the foremost in every great battle of the War. 

Whenever men were called upon to die, on either land or sea, 
they Avere there to offer their lives. It is a fitting tribute to 
place here, on this favorite spot, in the heart of this great city, 
this beautiful Monument. It shows a just appreciation of sacri- 
fice, heroism and fidelity to duty. Silently but eloquently it will 
teach lessons of patriotism to all who shall look upon its towering 
shaft. No true citizen of the Republic can behold it without a 
higher and nobler sense of the duties and responsibilities of his 
citizenship. It will point every child and student to the most 
thrilling and inspiring chapter of our national history, and lift up 
all alike to the highest of patriotic purpose. 

And now as we engage in its dedication, let us also dedicate 
ourselves anew to the interests of our country. Let no man think 
he lives under the institutions these men saved merely to enjoy 
them. There will be no more slavery to abolish ; no more here- 
sies of secession to destroy, no more such rebellions to suppress; 
no more wars of any kind between the North and the South, but 
there is other work to do, less heroic, perhaps, but scarcely less 
important. 

No government will execute itself, and no form of government 
will answer human requirements unless it be rightly adminis- 
tered. It is not the business of government to furnish employ- 
ment or bread; neither is it the right of government, b}' im- 
becility or the application of false theories, to paralyze business, 
destroy prosperity and enforce idleness, with its consequent 
misery and crime. 

With industrial armies marching on Washington, and the 
military of both the States and the United States marching on 
organized labor; with a coal miners' strike that cost the country 



u 



— 14 — 

millions of dollars just ended, and a railroad strike that will cost, 
no one yet knows how many millions more, now in progress ; with 
tens of thousand toiling for less than enough to secure the neces- 
sary comforts of life, and other tens of thousands in idleness, 
with unrest and sullen dissatisfaction almost universal, we have 
a condition, not a theory, confronting us, that invites and de- 
mands immediate and serious attention. 

We must not have hunger or bayonets, and we will not have 
either long. The mills and the factories must be started; the 
mines must be kept open ; the railroads must operate, and all who 
are willing to work must, shall and will have employment, and 
the whole country must and will again enjoy prosperity. But 
this change can not be brought by violence. It must come about 
in due form and orderly manner, under and in accordance with 
the forms, provisions and requirements of law. 

Let no man take the law into his own hands. It is our sov- 
ereign rule, and whosoever strikes at it, strikes at the only king 
we have. Every such blow, no matter in whose name it is struck, 
or how it may be disguised, is moral, if not legal, treason as rank 
and foul as was the assassin thrust that struck down the Presi- 
dent of the French Republic. 

If we would perpetuate what our fathers achieved, and these 
Soldiers saved, we must suppress not only assaults upon con- 
stituted authority, but also the men who make such assaults. We 
have no room, broad as our country is, for the anarchist, the 
communist, the socialist, or the boycotter. They are all of the 
same ilk. They are all un-American. They are all the enemies 
of labor, as well as of capital. Their tryanny is greater than 
that which precipitated the revolution. Their success would 
mean the dissolution of society, and the overthrow of the Re- 
public. 

Looking beyond our borders, the time has come for the exten- 
sion of our trade relations. We should not only do business with 
all the world, but our full share of it. This is particularly true 
as to the Western Hemisphere. 

The commercial dependencies of England are her Greater 
Britain. They turn the wealth of the world to the island that 
rules them, and make it the creditor and financial dictator of 



/ 



— 15 — 

all natious. Let us learn from example not to be unduly ambi- 
tious, but to be sufficiently so to subserve and protect our own 
best interests. Not by violence, but by the moral force of our 
position and relationships we should at least secure our own from 
those who are our natural friends. 

Other great questions are pressing upon us. We can not es- 
cape them if we would, and we should not if we could. In the 
immediate future we must answer whether or not we intend to 
wait indefinitely upon the pleasure of European nations for re- 
monetization of silver. Some way must be found to secure their 
co-operation, or some way for us to act in safety without it. 
Glittering generalities and plausibile platitudes will no longer 
answer. And how long, think you, will the world continue to 
sail ships around the Horn ? Not long. We must either build the 
Nicaragua Canal and control it, or let somebody else do it. Let 
us not be afraid to do it ourselves. Let us claim what belongs 
to us. Let us not be afraid to own the Sandwich Islands, and 
every other island that may want to fly the American flag. Let 
us not be afraid to be greater than we are. We have only to 
trust ourselves. Bloodless conquests with rich rewards are before 
us. The good of the world, as well as our own, commands us to 
go forward. Let us not hesitate, but with broad, patriotic, com- 
prehensive statesmanship lay hold upon the peace, happiness, 
power and glory that are within our grasp. Whether we are 
Democrats or Republicans, let us be, first of all, Americans. 



cr 



RECIPROCITY. 




LABELi> 



7 



RECIPROCITY. 



Address of Hon. J. B. Foraker Before the Manu= 

facturers' Convention. 



Cincinnati, O., January 24, 1895. 

Mi;. ('iiaii;.\ia.n anj; (i kntlk.miox: — 1 shall iiidiil^^c for the most 
})art in only general statements, and conlinr myselt' to only two 
leading ideas. Tliey are, first, as to the natnrc of rcci|ii'ority, and 
seeon(^lly. its desirability. 

In the first i)laee, there is more than one kind of iTripiocity. If 
the United States were to say to (ierniany, "^'on make stationary 
and portable engines and so do we, you are anxious to sell, and so 
are we; you want to come into our markets, and we want to go into 
yours; tlierefore, if you will admit American engines int(^ (rcrmany 
free of duty, we will a<lniit (ierman engines into the United States 
free of duty;'' that would be a i>roposition of reci])rocity, but it 
would not l)e the kind of reciprocity I am here to advocate. That 
would be sim])ly free trade, and under existing conditions as to 
wages it would be a bad bargain that could not possibl\' result in 
good to tliis country. If such a j>ro})osition were made and acted 
upon we would, as a result of it, liave to either abandon that line of 
l)usiness, or reduce wages; and every patriotic Ameriean should be 
opposed to both. 

But if, on the other hand, this country should say to (iermany, 
"You manufacture large quantities of Ijeet sugar. Vou have a sur- 
plus for which you are hunting Iniyers. \\'e i)roduce but little 
sugar; far less than we need. \\'e are large })urchasers; but while 
you have a surplus of sugar, and we a deficiency, you have a dehc- 
iency and we a surplus of i)ork, for which we are hunting Iniyers. 
^^'e have legislated against your sugar and you against our })ork. 
Now, if you will admit our pork free of duty, or u{)on acceptable 
terms and conditions, we will in the same way admit your sugar." 
that, too, would be reciprocity, and the kind of reciprocity I am here 
to s])eak for. 

In other words, the underlying jtrinciftle of the reci])rocity tiiat 
We want is business, bottomed on tlie idea that our mai'kets are our 



1 



own, not to be opened to others on sentimental grounds without an 
eciuivalent; or, ditlerently stated, our markets are our own, to be 
used by us in a sensible business way, as a lever Avith which to pry 
open the markets of other countries with which we want to trade. 

In the McKinley law of 1890 this kind of reciprocity was pro- 
vided for in the third section of the act, which reads as follows: 

Section 3. That with a view to secure reciprocal trade with 
countries producing the following articles, and for this purpose on 
and after the iirst day of January, 1892, whenever and so often as 
the President shall be satistied that the government of any country 
producing and exporting sugars, molasses, cofiee, tea and hides (raw 
and uncured), or any of such articles, imposes duties or other 
exactions upon the agricultural or other products of the United 
States, which in view of the free introduction of such sugars, 
molasses, coffee, tea and hides into the Tnited States, he may deem 
reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have the power, 
and it shall l^e his duty, to suspend, by proclamation to that effect, 
the provisions of this act relating to the free introduction of such 
sugar, molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the ])roduction of such coun- 
try, for such a time as he shall deem just, and in such case and 
during such suspension duties shall be levied, collected and paid 
upon sugar* molasses, coffee, tea and hides, the product of or 
exported from such designated country." 

The duties to be imposed in such cases are prescribed by the act. 

This McKinlev law, reciprocity and all, has been repealed by the 
tariff act of 1894, and the question is now whether we shall abide 
that action or return to the polic}^ of reciprocity which has been 
thus abandoned; not by enacting identically the same ])rovision 
that was embodied in the law of 1890, but by enacting legislation of 
the same general nature, designated to subserve the same general 
l»urposes. 

When, therefore, I speak in favor of reciprocity as provided by 
the act of 1890, I speak of the principle that was applied, rather 
than of any specific language, i)hrases or jirovisions that were 
employed. 

There are two kinds of objections, or ratlier there are two 
classes of objectors to this kind of legislation. 

In the first place, there are some protectionists who affect to dis- 
trust the doctrine, and Avho have been unfriendly t(^ it on the 
ground that it is, as they allege "a step towards free trade," and 
there are a good many free traders Avho have denounced it as a hum- 
bug, according to a certain party platform declaratit>n. It is neither 
free trade nor a hundnig. but protection, and a triunq)liant success. 

I am a protectionist, and I favor nn-iprocity for precisely the 
same reasons I favor protection. 

There was a time, thirty-iive years ago, when we needed protec- 
tion for a number of reasons. Our industries were then in their 
infancy; many of them had not l)een established at all. Our 
resources were not developed. We had no large aggregations of 
capital. Wc had no skilled mechanics. We had no established 



7/ 



markets. Rut now all that is clianired. Undrr thirty years of jtro- 
ti'ctioii our industries have j,a-o\vii to nianho(Kl. We have niulti- 
plii'd (lur pursuits, acquired wealth, markets and meehanics, and 
liave so prospered and grown in streuirth and capalulities that now, 
today, as a result of it all, we ean. without any i)roteetion what- 
ever," successfully defy the competition of the whole wctrld, exce|)t 
only for one thing, which we do not have and do not want, and 
that is the low standard of wages they have abroad. In other 
words, the whole tarifi" question has reduced itself, through these 
changed conditions, to a question of lahor. 

I spoke a moment ago about engines. They may not be the 
best subject for illustration, but they will answer })resent purposes. 
They are made in Belgium i\n' three-fourths what it costs to make 
them here, and chiefly because of the cheaper labor that can be 
(obtained there. That means that an engine that will cost you 
S2.00() if you make it in America, can be built in Belgium for 
Sl.oOO: ami that means that if we have free trade the Belgian will 
compel tlie American to quit l)usiness, or reduce w^ages from our 
high staudaid to his low level. We do not want that, and there- 
fore, we say to the Belgian, if you will not i)ay that extra SoOO to 
your Avageworkers. as you should, you shall stay out of the Ameri- 
can market, or pay it into the United States treasury for the privi- 
lege of coming in. Tliat is protection at lumie, and we so under- 
stand it: some of us better than we did two or three years ago. 

Reciprocity is the same thing precisely, except only that it is 
protection away from home. Consider again the case of the engine 
and assume that both the United States and Belgium have a sur- 
l)lus. They look about for a market. They find that Brazil wants 
to buy; both send their product to that country. What the Bel- 
gian sends costs him 81,500; what the American sends costs him 
82,000 to manufacture. Ocean transportation is substantially the 
same, and the tarifi' duties imposed by the Brazilian government, 
which V>oth must pay, are exactly the same. The consequence is 
that, when the American and the Belgian meet in competition in 
the market of Brazil, the Belgian has the same advantages he would 
have in the market of the United States under free trade, and 
mainly on account of the lower wages he i)ays to his employes, 
inevitably he takes the market. The American can't sell; and 
what helniys there must lie paid for, not by an exchange of 
}iroducts. but in gold. • 

Prior to the McKinley law of ISIKJ our i)urcha.ses from Mexico 
and Central and South American states and the islands, aggregated 
al)out two htmdred millions of dollars annually, while our sales 
amounted to less than seventy millions. In other words, we 
bought from the.se tifty millions of near neighbors and natural 
friends three times as much as we were able to sell them. To be 
more specific, take the figures as to our trade for the year preceding 
the law of IS^O with Brazil. That is a great country. Its area is 
equal to that of the United States. It is a part of the Western 
Hemisphere. It has a republican form of government. There is 



y 



cvei'y reason wliy the United States and Brazil slioiild l)e the 
closest of friends and do business together with profit to Ijoth. But 
what do the figures show? For the year LS89 we l)0uglit from 
Brazil to the amount of S60.620.047, and sold her only ti> tlu- 
amount of S10,84S.'271. Tlie balance awinst us was .S4U.771.776; 
every dollar of which we had to pay, and did \\\\\ in gold. 

For the same year Great Britian sold Brazil to the amount of 
$82,850,573, and bought from her only to the amount of $24, 676.- 
211, or in other Avords, instead of a balance against her of over 840.- y 
000,000, as was tlie case with us, she had a lialancc in her favor of 
$8,174,363. For the same year France had a balance in her favor in 
her trade with Brazil of S12,711,973, while the l^alance in favor of 
Clermany was $10,213,376. All these l)al;inces against Brazil were 
])aid by Brazil in the gold that we had paid her in settlement of 
the heavy balance against us; and as it was with Brazil, so. too. in 
like jtroportions it was with Mexico, Culm, Porto Rico, and eacli of 
the South and Central American states. 

It was to sto]) such a policy and turn the balances in our favor 
instead of against us. that we enacted the law of ISDO. under which 
we souglit to turn these balances in our favor, not by buying less, 
hut l)v selling more. It was a lousiness step, intended to increase 
the ex})ort trade of the United States l)y overcoming the disadvan- 
tages that had unjustly ke])t us out of other markets, and enal)le 
us to sell them as well as l)uy. and thus find new mai'kets for our 
products, and stop the drain of gold to meet the balance of trade 
against us. The proposition was simply common sense; that 
instead of giving away the privileges of our markets, we would 
exchange those ]>rivileges for like ]»rivileges in other markets. 

Other countries saw and adnutted the justice of it. and before 
the close of President Harrison's administration we had negotiated 
reciprocity treaties with Germany, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Porto Rico. 
San Domingo. (Juatemala. Salvador, Nicaragua and a number of 
other counti'it's. These treaties were all of the same general nature. 
and their charaetei- is fully illustrated by that with Brazil, under 
which it was i)rovided that Ih'azil should admit free of duty our 
"wheat, flour, buckwheat, barley, potatoes, beans, peas, hay, oats, 
pork, coal, agricultural im})lements. mining and mechanical tools, 
stationary and portable engines, and make a reduction of 25 per 
cent, on bacon, lard, buttei' and cheese, canned and preserved meats, 
llsh, fruits, cotton, manufaetun-r.-i of iron and steel, leather, and the 
manufacturers of wood, including cooperage, furniture of all kinds, 
Avagons, carts, carriages, (S:c. 

Following the repeal of this law. most, if not all. these treaties 
have been a!)rogated, and we are now having retalliation instead of 
reciprocity; but the law and the treaties stood long enough to give 
us some significant results, it was })ratically demonstrated that mir 
foreign com])etitoi- no longer had the advantage over us, by means 
of which he had been driving us out of these markets, ^\'hen, for 
instance, the Belgian went to Brazil with his engine he found that 
he still had to |)ay full taritl'duty. while the .\meriean. as provided 



7^ 



n 
I 



in the treaty of reeiproeity, could sail in witli his ilair liyin<r and his 
engine free of duty. The result was a removal at once of the diffi- 
culty that had previously barred us out. In other words, the 
American engine builder Avas ]H-otected, not alone in his home 
market liy American tariff, but also abroad, in the markets of the 
world, by American reciprocity. It was tariff at home and recip- 
rocity abroad, l)ut whether called tariff oi- reciprocity, it was simply 
protection — different in form, but identical in })rinciple. 

Xow, is there any "humbug'' about reciprocity? Let facts answer 
this (juestion. In two years after this reciprocity treaty had been 
made with Brazil, our export trade with that country increased fifty 
per cent., and during the same period the export trade of Europe 
with that country correspondingly decreased. In Cuba still greater 
results were realized. The increase of our exports to that island was 
from §12,000,000 in 1890 to $18,000,000 in 1892, and $24,000,000 in 
1893, or an increase in two short years of beginning, experiment and 
trial of a full round 100 per cent. 

During the same period the trade of England witli Cuba fell off' 
40 per cent., and that of France about 60 per cent. 

These are a few of the many practical results of our brief experi- 
ence under this law. They are a l)right promise of Avhat would 
have come to pass had the law been allowed to stand, and been 
administered by its friends'. 

In one of the last conversations I had with Mr. Blaine he said lie 
wiiuld rather have his name identified with reciprocity, if developed 
as it should be, than with any other economical measure of his time, 
giving it as his opinion that it would bring the greates't happiness 
and pros])erity to our country. But this law was not allowed to 
stand. \\'lii]e it was yet new. befoi'c it had l)een gi\'en a fail- trial, 
and when it was only enniniencing its good woi'k, it \vas sti'uek 
tlown. 

This is not the place to employ jiartisan language, Init J t)'ust 1 
may be pardoned for saying that not least among the offenses that 
have l)een committed agaiiist tlie interests of the American people 
is the overthrow of this ])olicy. 

We have reached the point in the development of (.)ur countiy 
when an extension of conn nei'cial I'clations is imperativelv demanded. 
It shoidd be the pur))ose of every American to do all in his ))ower 
to ])Ut American ships, with Ainci'ican ])roducts. undei- the American 
Hag. on every sea, and into e\-ery poll of the wculd. \o agency can 
he in\oked hy legislation more |ioweil"nl to promote this |)urpose 
than reci))rocity. It is common sense; it is l)usiness sense; it is 
honorable: it is patriotic: it will give us prosperity and strength at 
home, and respect and i)ower abroad. Restore and expand this 
])olicy, establish proi)er South American mail lines, by subsidies, if 
necessary; build and control the Nicaragua canal, increase our navy 
until it is aljle to protect our commerce in all waters, respond to our 
necessities and live up to our opportunities, and no language can 
exaggerate the greatness and the glory that will follow. 



7-r 



THE 
MONROE 

DOCTRINE. 

'^ ^ ^ 



7^ 



The Monroe Doctrine. 



Address of Hon. J. B. Foraker Before the Meeting 

of the Loyal Legion. 



Cincinnati, Ohio, May i, 1895. 

Mr. Commander and Fellow-Companions : 

The recent demands of Great Britain upon Venezuela and 
Nicaragua have again given prominence to the Monroe Doctrine, 
and made it appropriate to recall its origin, nature and purpose, 
and to discuss and consider its importance and the question of its 
enforcement. 

There is some controversy' as to who was its author. It is 
claimed, upon some show of authority, that it was first conceived 
by the British Prime Minister Canning, but the truth is that it 
was but the crystallization of a sentiment that had been enter- 
tained and asserted, more or less distinctly in various forms, by 
Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and most, if not all, 
the fathers of the republic. No doubt John Ouincy Adams, then 
Secretary of State, had much to do vx'ith its promulgation by 
President Monroe. But however all this may be, the important 
fact is that Monroe did declare it, and upon that declaration his 
fame has rested more securely than upon any other act of his 
long public life. He was not brilliant ; he was not strong or 
aggressive, but he was a man of good attainments, high charac- 
ter, and fairly endowed with intellectual powers. He had been 
a soldier in the Revolution, Minister to France and England, and 
had seen much of Europe. He understood their forms of gov- 
ernment and appreciated how radically they differed from us in 
all their influences and tendencies. He comprehended the neces- 
sity of our keeping away from them, and of keeping them away 
from us as to political matters if we would avoid compromising 
entanglements and wasting wars. 

He was called to the Presidency in 1816. That was an in- 
teresting time in the world's history. Napoleon had just been 
overthrown. While the .strife that preceded his downfall had 
been desolating Europe, we had been, with the exception of the 
second war with Great Britain, blessed with peace. We had re- 
covered from the strain of the Revolution. Jefferson had pur- 
chased Louisiana and we were in the act of acquiring Florida. 



We were enjoying a vigorous growth and a promising prosperity'. 
We had gained confidence in our form of government, and visions 
of coming greatness and power were breaking upon us. Our 
success was attracting the attention of the world. Mexico and 
most of the Central and South American states, following the 
example of the colonies, had asserted and conquered their inde- 
pendence of Spain. Written constitutions, freedom, liberty, were 
the watchwords and demands of the whole Western hemisphere. 
Our achievements, coupled with this emulation of our example, 
aroused the antagonism of the H0I3' Alliance, of which almost 
every government of Europe had become a member, except only 
England. Protestantism and selfish interest had caused her to 
withhold adherence and be opposed to the reconquest bj^ Spain 
of her dominions in America. When, therefore, the allied pow- 
ers threatened to intervene for the re-establishment of Spanish 
authority, England and the United States suddenly found them- 
selves in sympathetic opposition to such a purpose. Without 
this sympathy of England, the famous declaration would proba- 
bl}' never have been made. Certain it is that it never would 
have met with the acceptance and acquiescence by the rest of the 
world that followed. But, so it was, that the di.sposition of 
England, the threats of the allied powers, and the condition of 
the states that had thrown off the Spanish yoke, all conspired to 
make it appropriate for us to adopt a distinct policy with respect 
to the intervention of foreign powers in American affairs. 

It was in view of this situation and its requirements that 
President Monroe, in his annual message to Congress in Decem- 
ber, 1823, announced in well chosen, concise and firm language, 
the four propositions which constitute the doctrine that bears 
his name. 

They are : 

First. — That the United States will not interfere with the 
political affairs of Europe. 

Second. — The United States will not interfere with any 
colonies already established on this hemisphere by European 
powers. 

Third. — No European power will be allowed to interfere in 
the affairs of this hemisphere in the way of establishing new 
colonies. 

Fourth. — No European power will be allowed to oppress 
any state on this hemisphere. 

In other words, the essential point of the whole doctrine was, 
as it has been tersely stated, "America for Americans." 

Not "America for Americans " in the sense that only people 
born in America should live on the Western hemisphere, but in 
the sense that, except only as already established, no European 
government shall ever be tolerated in North, South or Central 
America. 

This left Canada subject to Great Britain, Cuba in the hands 
of Spain, Brazil under an Emperor ; but meant that they, and 



7^ 

every other state of the American hemisphere, should remain as 
they were, subject to only such changes of government as they 
might see fit to make uninfluenced In- any European power ; and 
denied to all European powers alike the right to colonize any new 
territory, or oppress any government or people on either of the 
American continents. It was a bold step, wasely and opportu- 
natelv taken. 

The immediate purpose was to prevent the reconquest of the 
former Spanish possessions, encourage free popular govennnent 
and avoid dangerous political neighbors ; but it involved vastly 
more. It fits all times and cases that involve American interests. 
The declaration was not embodied in any statute. The Con- 
gress took no part with respect to it. Only the President spoke, 
but he spoke officially, and his words were sanctioned by his 
countrymen. They expressed only approval for his utterance. 
That was enough. It was a serious warning, solemnly given, 
and the j^oung republic stood ready to enforce it. The effect was 
most .salutary. The Holy Alliance at once desisted from the 
threatened intervention, and shortly afterward dis.solved. 

With its dissolution came a general recognition of the doc- 
trine wdiich has been substantially observed for more than sev- 
enty vears. With the exception of the ill-fated attempt to estab- 
lish Maximilian in Mexico, England alone has violated it, and 
she only in what were at the times mistakenly regarded by us as 
unimportant instances, and under circumstances that did not 
seem to ju.stify a resort to drastic measures. But now we have 
two cases that" should not be ignored. Both are palpable viola- 
tions of this doctrine. 

In Venezuela it is a new colonization ; in Nicaragua, op- 
pression. Standing alone, separate and apart from other consid- 
erations, neither, nor both together, would appear to concern us 
seriou.sly ; but when rightly understood, they are fraught with 
momentous and far-reaching consequences. 

Consider the case of Nicaragua, now receiving so niuch at- 
tention. The beginning of the whole difficulty was a violation 
bv Great Britain of her obligations to us in the establishment of 
a'protectorate over the Mosquito Indians ; and the recent precip- 
itating cause of the present trouble was the unwarranted action 
of Mr. Hatch, who claimed to be a British consul, in stirring up 
sedition and rebellion among these Indians. 

The Nicaraguan government had never received or recog- 
nized Mr. Hatch as a representative of the British govennnent. 
They dealt with him, therefore, as an individual, and expelled 
him, as thev had a right to do, instead of shooting him, as they 
well might have done, in order that they might suppress rebellion, 
preserve the peace and protect life and property. 

This was the offense that was given England. It was founded 
in her owti wrong and disregard of the rights of others from the 
beginning. It was for this offense she made demand not only for 
full protection and restoration for her subjects and their property, 



■71 



but also for the payment of $75,000 in gold as a punishment for 
the expulsion of Mr. Hatch. All demands were conceded by 
Nicaragua, except only this payment. This she refused because 
unjust and because beyond her ability to pay. Both grounds 
were well taken. There had been no injury, and only vindi- 
cation was involved. One sum would answer that purpose as 
well as another ; but the second ground was even stronger than 
the first. Nicaragua is poor. She is without resources and with- 
out credit. Her entire population, scattered over an area one- 
fourth larger than all Ohio, is less than two-thirds of that of 
Cincinnati alone. She protested, and asked for arbitration, thus 
offering to submit to impartial judgment. That would have been 
just; that would have afforded vindication; that would have 
been in keeping with the civilization of the age, which demands 
fair dealing among nations, especially by the strong toward the 
weak, and the substitution of peaceful methods for war in the 
settlement of international disputes. 

England should have accepted, and she would have accepted 
had our Secretary of State been James G. Blaine. But she stud- 
ies all times and all administrations, and thus knowing her oppor- 
tunities, she didn't. On the contrarj^, she ordered out her battle 
ships, and the world knows the rest. 

It is not difficult for the student of British diplomacy to 
divine the ulterior purpose of these movements. A thousand 
3^ears of history will bear unbroken testimony that when England 
has an object in view she never fails to find an excuse for its ac- 
compli.shment. 

The acquisition of Honduras, the exten.sion of territorial 
claims at the mouth of the Orinoco, the Mosquito Protectorate 
and the demand upon Nicaragua, each and all, are but consistent 
parts of a well designed plan that has direct reference to vital 
American interests. It is not agreeable to criticise our National 
administration, especially not when we are met in the name of a 
comradeship that was predicated upon loyalty to our government, 
but it does seem necessary to. say that if the authorities at W^ash- 
ington would but take down the map and locate Belize and Blue- 
fields, on the Atlantic, and Corinto, on the Pacific coast, in the 
the immediate neighborhood of the respective termini of the pro- 
posed inter-oceanic canal, a diagram would be afforded that would 
enable even the dullest comprehension to understand that there 
is method in this British madness. 

But we are told that England had good excuse for the land- 
ing at Corinto. That is not true ; but if it were, she .should not 
have been allowed to do so for the all-sufficient reason, as every 
man knows who has studied British statesmanship, that it will 
not be a month, if she is allowed to stay that long, until she will 
have a dozen just as good excuses for remaining there forever. 
vShe took care to have this good excuse. It came ju.st as the 
Congress of the United States at its last session was about to pass 
the bill for the con.struction of the Nicaragua canal. It came 



•^&' 



u 



when it did, and as it did, because England chose to have it so, 
and she chose to have it so because she wanted to be in a position 
to have something to say about that great work. It was for this 
reason that she was not satisfied with apologies and full repara- 
tion for all damages to property and a fair arbitration as to the 
amount of the indemnity that should be exacted. It was for this 
reason that in her own case she was at once witness, attorney, 
jury and judge. It was for this reason that she demanded an 
indemnity largely in excess of the ability of Nicaragua to pay. 
It was with knowledge that she could not pay, unaided, that the 
demand was made, and it was for fear she might get help and 
meet the exaction that force has been so promptly invoked. 
What Great Britain wanted was not money, but a foothold, and 
now that she has the foothold, she will not willingly abandon it. 
She has gone to Corinto to stay — as long as she can. She has 
gone there because she proposes to have business in that quarter. 
She is preparing to reassert the copartnership provided for by 
the blundering Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which she has repeatedly 
ignored and violated to the point of abrogation ; or, what will 
suit her better, to have a war that will give her excuse to subju- 
gate the country and govern it in her own interest. 

Why is all'this ? Who is so stupid as to be unable to under- 
stand that she does not intend to allow the United States to build 
and control the Nicaragua canal — if she can help it ? 

Can not the whole American people. Confederate and Union 
soldiers alike, forgetting past differences and remembering only 
our common country, with its common interests, its common 
glories and its common destiny, stand upon a common platform 
for the construction and control of that canal so essential to our 
Union, our commerce and our general prosperity and power, with- 
out any interference, co-operation or control of any kind what- 
ever by England, or any other nation on the face of the earth ? 
I know we can. You know we can. The authorities at Wash- 
ington know we can ; but I fear they do not know how essential 
it is to the safety of this great enterprise that at all times and 
under all circumstances the Monroe Doctrine must be strenuously 
upheld in the broadest and most significant sense. 

Fellow companions, we are nearing the time when we must 
either abandon this doctrine, or, if she doesn't withdraw, England 
must be plainly told to get out, and, failing to go, she must be 
made to leave. This may be attended with serious consequences ; 
but no matter. The end will justify the means ; for never in our 
history has it been more important than now for this country to 
avoid indecision and weakness in her intercourse with other 
nations. We have reached a point in our national development 
where we are able, and our interests require us, to steadfastly 
stand by our principles, our neighbors and our natural friends. 
The need of the hour is a broad, comprehensive, patriotic and 
thoroughly American statesmanship that will extend our com- 
merce, enlarge our navy, and, by firmness, justice and consistent 
adherence to principle, command the respect of the world. 



f / 



QUESTIONS OF THE HOUR. 



CURRENT POLITICS DISCUSSED 

AND EXPLAINED. 



The Democratic Platform of Humbug Exposed 

and Riddled. 



The Monroe Doctrine and the Re= 

publican Party. 



BRICE AND THE WOOL QUESTION! A RECORD 
OF SHAME AND PERFIDY. 



Speech of Ex-Governor J. B. Foraker at Springfield, 

Ohio, September 10, 189S. 



I 



NITSCHKE BROS., PRINTERS, COLUMBUS, OHIO. 



SPEECH OF EX-GOVERNOR J. B. FORAKER 

AT SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, SEPT. 10, 1895. 



Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens — It is fair to assume that the Democratic 
party has made for itself in its platform the best case it has. If, therefore, 
there be any reason why that party should prevail at the approaching election, 
we have a right to expect to find it stated in its resolutions. In addition to the 
silver question, upon which there is no issue, it consists of five distinct planks, 
with a sixth added as a supplement. 

The first is a declaration to the the effect that the repeal of the purchasing 
clause of the Sherman silver law, the un-American federal election law and the 
McKinley law, has resulted in a return of prosperity to the country. 

President Cleveland is congratulated upon his success in securing these 
repeals and in upholding the credit of the country, and Senator Brice is con- 
gratulated for "his earnest and effective support of President Cleveland in these 
matters." 

The second plank declares that the panic of 1893 was produced by the cur- 
rency and tariff laws that had been enacted by the Republicans. 

The third resolution denounces "bossism" as practiced by the Republicans 
at the Zanesville convention. 

For a fourth plank they denounce the last legislature as corrupt and un- 
worthy of confidence, and their fifth declartion denounces the increase of local 
indebtedness — by counties and municipalities — under the authority of the last 
legislathre. 

The sixth, or supplementary, resolution favors the enforcement of the Mon- 
roe doctrine. 

It is more convenient to consider these several planks in the reverse order of 
their statement. I call attention, in the first place, therefore, to their supple- 
mentary resolution concerning the enforcement of 

The Monroe Doctrine. 

This plank was offered in the committee on resolutions, and by that com- 
mittee rejected, after full discussion and consideration. 

It was again offered by General Finley in the convention as "an independent 
instrument." The convention rejected it three different times before it finally, 
after a long debate, adopted it as a supplement to the platform. 

I mention this because there is much significance attached to the manner 
in which this resolution was pressed upon the convention and finally adopted 
by it. No Republican convention that ever sat in Ohio or any other state of the 
Union would have hesitated for one moment to adopt such a declaration. Such 
resolutions are to be found running through all our party literature. The Mon- 
roe doctrine is American; it is patriotic, and the Republican party is always true 

2 



5 ^ 



to both its letter and spirit. Why did the Democratic party hesitate to adopt 
this resolution? Simply because Mr. Cleveland in his administration of our 
foreign affairs, has notoriously disregarded the requirements of this doctrine, 
especially so as to Nicaragua andi,Venezuela. His course in both these cases has 
been so unpatriotic, un-American and indefensible as to bring shame to the 
cheeks of all Americans, and to excite resentment in the minds of the great 
masses of the American people, without regard to party differences. The pur- 
pose of the resolution was to cover the party from attaclt on this point. The op- 
position was due to two causes. First, it was regarded by the defenders of Mr. 
Cleveland as an attack upon his administration. In the second place, certain 
trans-continental railroad interests are opposed to the construction of the Nica- 
ragua canal, and by a significant coincidence, apparently, very much interested 
in the re-election of Mn. Brice, and it was thought unwise and impolitic to run 
the risk of offending either Mr. Cleveland or these railroad interests. 

Who can have any confidence in a party declaration made under such circum- 
stances, especially when the policy is one with which the administration in 
power is already at war? The time has come when there should be no equivoca- 
tion on this subject. The American people must stand up boldly, and under all 
circumstances, for the application of the Monroe doctrine to American affairs 
throughout the whole of the Western hemisphere. Every Central and South 
American republic should be made to feel, not only by our declarations, but by 
practical application of them, that it has a friend in the United States able and 
willing to protect them at all times from European colonization and oppression; 
and every European power should be made to understand and appreciate that 
no inter-meddling violation of the Monroe doctrine will be tolerated. Democratic 
success in Ohio would mean an indorsement of the Cleveland administration in 
its course on this subject, as well as in all other respects. Are we ready to give 
such indorsement? I am sure the sentiment of Ohio is to the contrary. If so, 
let us speak out for the Monroe doctrine and its enforcement, and the way to do 
this is, to vote the Republican ticket. 

The fifth plank, as already stated, denounces the last legislature for the large 
increase, under its authority, of 

The Local Indebtedness of the State. 

Running into debt needlessly is an acknowledged evil, no matter whether it 
be a local debt or a general debt. It is difficult, however, to avoid the increase 
of our indebtedness in a new country such as we have, and this is particularly 
true as to the local indebtedness, by which is meant that which is contracted 
by counties, townships and municipalities. Our state is yet constantly develop- 
ing; new roads, new public buildings and new enterprises and improvements 
of various kinds are constantly demanding legislative attention and provision. 
I am sure that every Republican governor our state has had in recent 
years has desired to restrain the increase of our local debts as much as the 
public good would allow, and that all have done all they could do with pro- 
priety in that behalf. 

But can this be said of Governor Campbell? Let the record answer. It 
shows that when Governor Foster was inaugurated in 1880, the local indebt- 
e.'ness of Ohio amounted to $41,490,574.53, and that when he went out of office 
foil.' years later this sum had grown to $47,633,123.21. The total increase during^ 
the four years of his two administrations was $6,142,548.68, or an average annual 
increase of $1,535,637.17. During the two succeeding years of Governor Hoadly's 

3 



administration this indebtedness, amounting, when he came into office, as 
above shown, to $47,633,123.21, grew to $53,290,398.53, an increase in two years of 
$5,657,275.32, or an average annual increase of $2,828,637.66. 

I succeeded Governor Hoadly, and during %he four years of my two admin- 
istrations this debt grew to the sum of $60,228,121.63, making an increase for 
four years of $6,937,723.10, or an annual average increase of $1,734,430.75. 

Then came Governor Campbell, who now stands upon a declaration that de- 
nounces the increase of local indebtedness under Governor McKinley, and asks to 
be re-elected, presumably that he may stop this growth and correct this evil. 
You would naturally expect that his record would justify his making such a 
claim, but it does not. During his two years the local indebtedness of Ohio grew 
from $60,228,121.63 to $71,233,744, an increase for two years of $11,500,622.37, or an 
average annual increase of $5,502,811.13, or more than three times as great an 
annual increase under his administration as there was under the adminis- 
tration of either Foster or myself. 

These figures need no elaboration. They tell their own story; they show that 
if the question of increasing the local indebtedness is to cut any figure in deter- 
mining who shall be the next governor of Ohio, Mr. Campbell is not the man the 
voters of this state are looking for. 

The Last Legislature. 

The fourth plank declares that the last legislature was corrupt and unworthy 
of confidence. It should be sufficient to say that our Democratic friends 
thrashed this straw last year. They made the same charge then. The people 
listened and answered with an indorsement of that legislature and the whole 
cause of Republicanism by the largest majority ever given to any political 
party in the state. 

But let us consider this charge for a moment. It is a very serious one, if it 
means anything at all. What does it mean? There are no specifications. There 
were none last year. Nobody pretends to tell us wherein the legislature was 
corrupt, or on what account it was unworthy of confidence. Why have they 
spared us the details? Why did they not partiqularize? There is but one 
•answer, and that is .because there are no details; no specifications can be given; 
no particula.rs can be stated. The whole charge is but empty campaign clap- 
trap, without any foundation whatever in truth. But if we are to consider leg- 
islatures of the past in determining how we shall vote at present, what can our 
Democratic friends offer? They elected a legislature in 1883 and another in 1889. 
Both these legislatures are within the memory of all. They are the last exam- 
ples, and now that we are challenged to consider the relative character of dif- 
ferent general assemblies, I am not only warranted in saying, but invited to say 
that never at any time, according to Democratic testimony, saying nothing 
whatever as to Republican statements, have there been gathered together in 
Ohio two such assemblies of corrupt boodlers as constituted what is known in 
the political history of this state as the coal oil legislature, that sent H*nry 
B. Payne to the United States senate, and the Campbell legislature, that was 
"Briced" in January, 1890. 

I need not waste time quoting from Democratic newspapers about 

The Payne Legislature. 

Its bad reputation can never be forgotten; but in view of the present situa- 
tion it is not out of place to recall what General Hawkins, as the adjutant gen- 
eral and chief of staff to Governor Campbell, and now of the Cincinnati Enquirer, 
said about the last of these bodies. 

4 • 



The Campbe!! Leg^islature. d^aS' 



I quote from a letter written by him at the time and published in the Cin- 
cinnati Evening Post. He Said of this legislature: " It will go down to history as 
the most unsatisfactory body that ever met in the state house. * * * v ^phe 
majority of its acts are either indifferent or very bad. * * * * it has in- 
sisted on doing things which will damn it for all time to come. * * * * 
It v/ill be distinguished for having spent thousands of dollars on useless ex- 
penditures * * * and for accepting from boodlers a goodly sum of money; 
* * * * for having among its members some of the smallest and cheapest 
rascals that ever got into politics; men who saw no good in any measure unless 
they could discover a five-dollar greenback M^rapped up in it." 

What General Hav/kins said about that legislature but expressed the opinion 
universally entertained of it by the men of all parties. Such were the last two 
legislatures the Democratic party has given us. Do you want any more such 
bodies? Is there any ground to believe or hope that another Democratic legis- 
lature would be any better than the last two? Consider the situation! Every 
man in Ohio knows that Mr. Brice has no hope or expectation of carrying the 
legislature except by the unlimited use of money. Can any man, judging from 
past experience, describe the corrupt practices and the disgracful debaucheries 
of the public morals that would attend the election of a United States senator 
if a Democratic legislature should be so chosen? Ohio has been too much dis- 
graced already. Let us make it impossible to have a repetition of such practices 
by making the legislature Republican. 

" Bossism." 

I come now to the third plank. It denounces "Bossism," as practiced at the 
'Zanesville convention. 

At the Zanesville convention there was no "bossism," except only that of 
the people. No one man had much to do with the action of that body in making 
'Choice of a candidate for governor. By a life of noble deeds and by long years 
of active and faithful service in the cause of Republicanism, General Bushnell 
had endeared himself to the Republican party. They wanted to honor him 
v/ith the highest office in their power to bestow, and they were determined 
to do it, no matter whether he wanted it or not. Therefore, it was that all 
Ijlans and machinations of politicians went for naught, and General Bushnell was 
chosen to be our standard-bearer and the next governor of Ohio. All he had to 
do with bringing about that result was to live a life of probity, of honor, of 
irdelity to duty and to Republicanism. For that he will not be blamed. It was 
that which influenced the convention, and nothing else. No convention ever 
■sat in Ohio that was freer from "bossism" in every offensive sense than was that 
which met at Zanesville. 

Eut what of the convention that put forth this pronunciamento? No con- 
vention ever sat in Ohio that was so absolutely the property of one man, ready, 
willing and anxious to do his bidding, as was the Democratic convention of 1895. 
It is notorious that it was both owned and "bossed," in the most reprehensible 
'.sense' of the word. 

Cleveland's Administration. 

This brings me to tlie first and second planks of their platform. They raise 
the real issue of this campaign. They are in the nature of a defense of Mr. 
•Cleveland's administration. They put it forward for approbation. They declare 
ithat the panic throiigh which we have passed was caused by the legislation of 

5 



the Republican party, and that the present partial revival of business is due 
to what the Democratic party has accomplished in the repeal of the McKinley 
law, the Federal election law, and the purchasing clause of the Sherman silver 
law. We join issue upon these propositions. 

A very few figures will answer their whole case. The public debt amounted 
at the close of the war to $2,800,000,000. The bonds representing this debt bore 
high rates of interest. 

Under Republican administrations the revenues were sufficient to pay all 
the current expenses of the government, and steadily reduce this debt from 
year to year, until the total amount yet owing in March, 1893, when this admin- 
istration came into power, exclusive of non-interest-bearing greenbacks, was 
less than $600,000,000, bearing the lowest rates of interest any nation has ever 
been able to command. 

The tremendous revenues necessary to accomplish these financial wonders 
were raised by the protective system, under which the burdens of taxation were 
unfelt, and the whole country constantly prospered and grew in credit, strength 
and power. 

Under this administration and the tariff law of its creation our i*evenues 
have become insufficient to meet current expenses, and the public debt, instead of 
being reduced, has been increased by the sale of $162,500,000 of bonds neces- 
sarj'^ to meet current obligations and maintain our gold reserve. 

Once more we have been compelled to become familiar with bond syndi- 
cates, impaired credit and usurious rates of interest. 

Our foreign trade has also been injuriously affected. Our imports for the 
last fiscal year increased $76,663,252. During the same period our exports de- 
clined $84,801,325. In other words, we have bought more and sold less to the 
amoimt of $161,464,577. It is no wonder we are having trouble with our cur- 
rency, our revenues and our credit. 

But turn from the figures to that which is within the common knowledge 
of all. 

1892. 

Eighteen hundred and ninety-two was the high-water mark of American 
prosperity. Every industry was in full activity. No man was without the oppor- 
tunity to labor. There Avas no idleness, except by choice, and no poverty or 
want, except as self-inflicted. The wheels were all turning, the mines were all 
open, the mills were all busy. Labor was universally employed, and good wages 
and all the comforts of life were within the command of every American who 
was willing to work. The revenues of the government were ample to meet all 
its obligations, and the credit of the United States was at the highest point ever 
reached by any nation on the face of the earth in the history of all time. It 
was a typical year of a golden era, the last, richest ripest fruit of thirty years 
of Republican administration that had commenced with a government without 
credit, a country divided, and entering upon a civil war that involved the very 
existence of our institutions. 

1893. 

Eighteen hundred and ninety-three was the very opposite. With its begin- 
ning a general uneasiness was mainfested throughout business circles; fear and 
apprehension took the place of courage and confidence. It was soon perceived 
that a storm was brewing, and all began to prepare for it. Business men com- 
menced taking in sail; pay-rolls were cut down; creditors pressed for settlement;; 

6 



debtors weut to the wall; business was paralyzed; labor was driven into want. 
Sti ikes, tramps, souphouses, industrial armies, panics, riots, blood and murder 
followed. 

Most panics are soon over, but this one continued through the year, and 
weut on without abatement until the close of 1894. 

It was not until the early months of 1895 that any relief was perceptible. 
Since then the clouds have been lifting, and the business world has been grad- 
ually regaining hope and spirit. Business is much better now than it was lasi 
year, but it is yet far below what it was in 1892. The volume is less, prices are 
lower and wages are from 10 to 20 per cent below what they were, while the 
general demand for labor is still much less than the supply, and thousands re- 
main without work, many of them dependent upon charity, who never before 
knew what it was to be idle. 

The Cause of the Panic. 

Our Democratic friends acknowledge these facts, but they deny responsi- 
bility for the panic, and claim credit for this partial revival of business. In sup- 
port of this position they tell us there was no trouble when Cleveland was 
elected in 1884; that they had not done anything, and congress had not even 
assembled when the panic of 1893 broke upon us, and that prosperity did not 
begin to return until after the tariff legislation of the last congress was enacted. 

All this is easily answered. Cleveland was elected in 1884 upon a platform 
that contained no financial heresies, and demanded enough protection to cover 
the difference between wages in this country and foreign countries. All through 
the campaign that platform was interpreted by Democratic speakers and 
Democratic newspapers to be a substantial acceptance by Democracy of the 
principles, policies and purposes of the Republican party, and everywhere they 
appealed for votes on the ground that if they should succeed to power there 
would not be any change of policies to affect and disturb business, but only a 
change in the personnel of the officials who should conduct our public affairs. 
Therefore, when Mr. Cleveland was elected there was no cause for alarm in the 
business world. He was not only pledged to sound principles and policies, but 
there was left to us a Republican senate, which made it impossible for him to 
break that pledge if he wanted to. 

But in 1892 it was different. Instead of declaring in their platform for enough 
protection to oqualize wages, they declared against all protection, not only as 
impolitic — but as unconstitutional, and pledged themselves to destroy the whole 
system, root and brant h. 

In addition to this, they startled the financial world by declaring in favor of 
state banks of issue. ?Ir. (')e\elard was elected, therefore, in 1892. upon a plat- 
form radically different from that v-pon which he stood in 1884, and there was no 
Republican senate left to prevent the enforcement of its declarations, but both 
senate and house were Democratic, and nothing remained to prevent the enact- 
ment and enforcement of laws in accordance with the pledges that had been 
given and the threats that had been made. The result was that when the busi- 
nes.s world saw what had been done, it took fright. It was not necessary to wait 
for congress to meet and pass laws. The mere presence of the Democratic party 
in power, armed with authority to execute such pledges was sufficient. No man 
could know under what conditions he would have to do business, and this un- 
certainty, coupled with just apprehension of vicious legislation to follow was 
enough to stop all business. In other words, it was not what the Republican 
party had done, but what the Democratic party was threatening to do, that made 

7 



all the trouble. It was the menace of free trade, wild-cat money, and states' 
rights ideas generally, with all the incompetency and lack of patriotism in- 
volved, succeeding to the broad, comprehensive, aggressive, patriotic states- 
manship that v/e had been enjoying, that occasioned the fright, and brought 
the panic, with all its train of evils. 

Why Business is Reviving. 

And as it was the mere incoming of the Democratic party that destroyed 
our prosperity, so, too, is it now the incoming of the Republican party to power 
that is restoring prosperity. Throughout 1S93, and until the adjournment of 
congress, at the close of August, 1894, the country had an object lesson it should 
not soon forget. It had been thirty years since 

The Democratic Party 

Had been in control of the presidency and both houses of congress. During all 
this period they had been simply a party of opposition. Each man had his own 
viev/s of what was meant by Democratic platforms, and as to what constituted 
Democratic principles, and as to what form of legislation was necessary to 
express and apply them. It was soon developed that Democracy was one thing 
to Mr. Cleveland, another to Senator Hill, something else to Mr. Brice, widely 
different still to others, and that scarcely any two were agreed either as to 
Democratic principles or Democratic measures. When, therefore, congress con- 
vened, it was quickly made manifest that, except only to destroy the Federal 
election laws, the party in power was without unity of sentiment with respect 
to principles, policies or purposes. Its representatives could not agree upon 
anything. The house quarreled with the senate; the senate quarreled with the 
house; the members of each body quarreled with themselves, and the president 
quarreled with all of them. The struggle over the tariff was protracted and dis- 
graceful beyond expression. The bill brought in by Mr. Wilson and passed by 
the house was in keeping with the platform. It was a distinctive free trade 
measure, that eliminated every vestige of protection from our statutes. It was 
framed in the committee by its Democratic members without consultation with 
their Republican colleagues, and practically without granting a hearing to the 
great interests and industries that were to be affected. It meant the permanent 
overthrow of the protective policy under which, we had experienced the great- 
est development and the richest prosperity. Instead of allaying, it intensified the 
panic, but the worst phases were not developed until the bill reached the senate, 
and the country witnessed the scenes that followed. 

The Tariff Bill in the Senate. 

That body was designed by the framers of our government to be the con- 
servative force in our institutions, upon the patriotism, integrity and wisdom of 
which j-eliance could be placed under all circumstances. The country looked 
to it with hope, but only to be disappointed. Instead of prompt and patriotic 
action, weeks and months were consumed in quarrelfeome and undignified debates 
that increased distrust by showing hopeless divisions, bitter prejudice, gross 
incapacity and apparent disregard for the welfare, credit and good name of the 
republic. 

Patience ceased to be a virtue and hope gave way to despair when finally it 
became manifest that the United States senate, in which had sat Clay, Webster 
and the loftiest characters of the American people, was dominated by Wall { 
street, and that selfish interests and gambling for personal fortunes had more 

8 



^ 



to do with determining legislation than a patriotic consideration of the condi- 
tion and wants of the country. 

The thoughtful were sickened and the unfortunate were infuriated. The 
panic widened and ripened into riots and armed insurrections that resisted the 
the constituted authorities and made it necessarj^ to invoke the military to pre- 
vent anarchy, preserve the peace and protect life and property. 

It finally became apparent that no tariff bill could ever be passed by that 
body in the usual way. 

Bargaining and bartering then became the order of the day, and finally, to 
extricate themselves from the confusion and scandal that followed and secure 
the enactment of some kind of a measure, an agreement was entered into by 
which the whole subject was relegated to Senators "Vest, of Missouri; Mills, of 
Texas, and Jones, of Arkansas, as a sub-committee of the Democratic caucus, to 
frame a bill which all should accept, support and vote for, whether it accorded 
with their judgment, protected the interests of their respective constituencies 
and promoted the public welfare or not. 

The making of such an agi'eement involved for every senator who entered 
into it a surrender of his judgment, his freedom of action, his authority to in- 
dependently represent his state, and a violation of his sworn duty to the whole 
country. In no other way could the requisite number of votes to pass a bill be 
secured, and by this means they could secure only enough without a single one 
to spare. It was not possible, in the nature of things, to thus enact an acceptable 
law. It was not any surprise, therefore, that the act when passed gave univer- 
sal dissatisfaction. It relieved nobody, but exasperated everybody. President 
Cleveland denounced it as "party perfidy and party dishonor," refused to sign 
it, and appealingly inquired: "How can the Democratic party face the people?" 

The Democratic party could not face the people, and the congressional elec- 
tions of 1894 went overwhelmingly Republican. And then, and not until then, 
hope set in. When the people saw that there could be no more Democratic 
legislation they felt that the deepest depths had been sounded ,and that they 
had only to hold out until 1896 could bring complete relief. 

Does any man believe it would help business if Ohio should go Democratic 
this year? Does not every man know that the best thing for the business of this 
country that can happen this year is a Republican victory in this state, and 
that the larger it is the better it will be? And is there not in this fact alone con- 
clusive pi'cof that the times are improving, not because of anything the Demo- 
crats have (lone, but in spile of all they have accomplished, and because it is be- 
lieved that the triumphant restoration to power of the Republican party is near 
at hand? 

The Wilson=Brice-Oorman Law. 

But we are told by Senator Brice that with some few amendments this tariff 
lavv will prove the wisest and best the country has ever had. 

There is a story of a man who had a gun which, with a few exceptions, he 
was very much pleased with. He did not want to part with it, and therefore un- 
dertook to amend its deficiencies. He first got a new lock, then a stock, and 
finally a new barrel, and when he had a new lock, stock and barrel he was en- 
tirely satisfied with his "old gun." 

It will not be necessary, probably, to do away so completely with the present 
tariff law, but it will be necessary to make some very radical changes in its 
provisions, and to add to it some very important amendments before it will 
ever give satisfaction to the American people. The changes will be so numerous 
and so vital that practically a new law will be necessary. 

9 



D 



Some Needed Amendments. 

To begin with, the whole subject of the tariff will have to be revised on pro- 
tection lines, with a view to making such rates of duty, and so placing them as to 
raise enough revenue to support the government, and afford such protection 
as may be necessary to enable us to maintain our markets, our diversified in- 
dustries, our skilled mechanics, and enable us to pay the American standard of 
wages to the wage-workers of the nation. 

The expenses of the government under this law are about fifty millions of 
dollars greater annually than its receipts. Corresponding deficits are the result, 
and in consequence we see this great country, with its wonderful resources and 
untold wealth, constantly running into debt, and, with impaired credit, offering 
its bonds instead of its surplus products in the markets of the world. 

All this must stop, and will stop when the Republican partj' comes into 
power. We must have no more deficits, no more bond sales, no more gold syn- 
dicates, but ample revenues, and a sound currency, the poorest dollar of which 
whether gold, silver or paper, will be as good as the best dollar of any country 
in the world. 

The present law repealed the 

Reciprocity 

Provisions of the McKinley law. These provisions must be re-enacted so that 
our markets may be used to secure such additional trade relations with other 
countries as will eiiable us to extend our commerce on terms of advantage. At 
another time I shall dwell upon the importance of this. I can only suggest it now. 
There is one other provision of the present law that must be repealed, which 
Senator Brice is directly and altogether responsible for, and that is the 

Free Wool 

Clause. The Hon. Frank Hurd, in his speech as chairman of the Democratic 
state convention in 1894. said: 

"I have said that free vrool is the most important feature of the new meas- 
ure. It is worth more to tariff reform than all other provisions of the law put 
together. The organization to defeat this part of the bill was strong and com- 
pact. It came principally from Ohio, where the Ohio Wool-Growers' Association 
has been long established. As Ohio was the greatest wool-growing state, the ar- 
guments were especially directed to the Ohio members of congress. To their 
credit, be it said, the Democratic members in the house stood firm, every one 
voting for free wool. For the final passage of the wool clause, when by one word 
he could have defeated it, more credit is due to the junior senator from Ohio, 
Calvin S. Brice, than to any other influences, or to all other influences com- 
bined. His independence and courage saved tariff reform the most important 
feature of the bill as it passed the house." 

And he did not speak the word. Consider the consequences to the farmers of 
Ohio. 

Sheep husbandry is one of our most important industries; almost every 
farmer in Ohio raises sheep and grows wool. The statistics show that we had in 
Ohio in 1894, 3,555.403 sheep, and that in 1895 we had but 3.005.182. These figures 
lell a startling story. They show that the sheep of Ohio are being slaughtered 
at the rate of more than 500.000 per annum, or about 1,500 per day. This is due 
to the fact that the shrinkage in their values, and in the value of their wool is 
i#o gre^t that sheep raising and wool grov.ing have become unprofitable. It 
means the loss of millions of dollars to the farmers of this state, without any 
compensating benefits whatever. 

10 



// 



The Caucus Amendment. 

What excuse has Senator Brice given us for not speaking that "one word?" 
In published interviev/s he has said that he was one of the parties to the agree- 
ment, whereby the Democratic caucus had left to the three senators from Mis- 
souri, Arkansas and Texas, the whole subject of a tariff bill, to do with as in 
their judgment might be best, and that agreement bound him to accept free 
wool because they so decided. The case, as he puts it,shows that he surrendered 
his commission to represent Ohio to the senators named, and allowed them to 
<■ vote for Ohio instead of voting for Ohio himself. 

It is not too harsh to say that such action was utterly indefensible. It was 
indefensible upon the facts of the case measured by practical results. It was in- 
defensible upon theory. It was a plain, unqualified relinquishment of a sacred 
trust that no party exigency could justify. 

It aggravates the case to recall that when Senator Brice voted, without a 
word of protest, against the Ohio farmer, for free wool, at the dictation of these 
southern senators, he also, at their dictation, without complaint or objection 
of any kind, voted to impose a duty equal to an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent, 
on sugar, 83.89 per cent, on rice, 36 to 45 per cent, on cotton manufactures, and 
also substantial duties on every southern product or interest that the southern 
senators wanted protected. 

Brice's Record. 

That is Mr. Brice's record only in a very small part, but it is sufficient to 
show that he should not be re-elected. 

It is urged, however, that he is better than his party, and that the tariff 
bill so passed was better than it would have been but for his labors and influence 
as a Democrat with his fellow Democrats. 

However that may be, it is certain beyond all question that had a Repub- 
lican occupied his seat no tariff bill of any kind would have been passed, and the 
McKinley law would have remained undisturbed. Had Mr. Brice refused to be 
bound hand and foot by a caucus agreement, if he had refused to be bucked and 
gagged by the three senators from the great manufacturing (?) states of Texas, 
Arkansas and Missouri— if he had only stood up for his right to represent Ohio, 
according to his own judgment, and demanded protection for wool, he would 
have defeated the whole measure, since without his vote it would have been 
impossible to have repealed the McKinley law. or to have substituted any meas- 
ure of any kind for it. In that event he might have had some claim for im- 
portant services rendered to his country, but as the case stands he has no 
claim whatever. 

The repeal of the Federal election laws, the hopeless divisions of the Dem- 
ocrats on the silver and currency questions, making it impossible for them to 
command the confidence of the country in legislating on those subjects, and the 
unpatriotic administration of the pension department, are matters I shall discuss 
at another time, when I can give them the full attention they merit. 

Foreign Policy. 

So, too, must I pass over, for the present. Mr. Cleveland's foreign policy. 
Suffice it now to say that Hawaii. Nicaragua and Venezuela are three striking 
chapters that no patriotic American can ever recall without feeling his cheeks 
p_^antle with shame. 

11 



y 



The Real Issue. 



It is the combination of all these topics that makes up the one great question 
whether or not the Democratic administration, with its failures at home and its 
disgraces abroad, shall be indorsed by the intelligent, liberty-loving, patriotic 
citizens of the great state of Ohio. No matter what else may be talked about 
in the impending canvass, this is the paramount inquiry that each and all must 
answer at the ballot-box. 

For the last two years the Democratic party has been broken and demoral- 
ized. Appalled and dismayed by the consequences of their own acts, tens of 
thousands of Democrats have remained away from the polls, refusing to vote, 
or, exercising the right of suffrage, have voted the Republican ticket. This year 
they are making frantic efforts to reform their lines. We hear a great shouting 
among the captains of their hosts, accompanied with loud proclamations that 
Ohio is going Democratic. 

Ex-Governor Campbell is announcing that he will defeat General Bushnell 
and Senator Brice is reported to have said that he will carry the legislature if 
it costs him every cent he is worth. 

The consequences of this contest are far-reaching. A Democratic victory 
in Ohio this year would mean a Democratic victory in the nation next year. No 
man can exaggerate the disastrous consequences of such a result. But aside from 
the public interests involved, the people of Ohio owe it to themselves to resent 
the imputation that one of the highest offices in their power to bestow is to be 
sold in the market like a chattel. The battle we are to fight is not only for Re- 
publicanism, for nationality, for prosperity and progress, but it is also for de- 
cency, honesty and the good name of our great commonwealth. 

General Bushnell. 

I congratulate the Republicans of Ohio that in such a contest they have such 
a candidate as General Bushnell. He is a typical American citizen. By his 
own unaided efforts he has made his life pre-eminently successful. By countless 
deeds of charity he has made friends of all who love humanity, and by his patri- 
otic services as a soldier and his life-long devotion to the cause of Republican- 
ism he has endeared himself to every member of the party of Lincoln, Grant 
and Blaine. He will prove a worthy successor to the greatest men who have 
filled the office for which he has been named, and give to the state one of the 
best administrations it has ever enjoyed. Let us rally to his support as one man. 

Governor McKinley. 

And now as to Governor McKinley. I was at the Zanesville convention. I 
know something about the platform that was adopted there. I had something to 
do with it. I believed in it then, every line of it, from the beginning 
to the ending, and I believe in it now. I was willing to stand on it then; 
I am willing to stand on it now. And there was not any provision in it that met 
my approbation more heartily than the declaration that next year Ohio Repub- 
licans should stand as one man in presenting Governor McKinley to the nationaJ 
convention as our candidate for president. By long years of faithful and dis- 
tinguished service to the party he has won for himself that high honor. After 
we have carried Ohio this year for General Bushnell, we shall be in splendid trim 
to ask something of the Republicans of the United States. 

12 



7^ 



SPEECH OF ACCEPTANCE 



OF 



H 



NATOR 



u 



H 




H 



Made before the 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF OHIO 



January 15, 1896. 



Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Senate and House 
of Representatives : I have come in answer to your call. I 
liave come to accept the high lionor you have seen fit to 
confer. I have come to thank you for that action, and the 
compliment and the confidence involved, and I have come 
to give you my assurance that I shall do all that in my powei' 
lies to discharge the duties of the position with fidelity and 
to your satisfaction. It is a great honor to be chosen under 
any kind of legitimate circumstances to represent such a 
State as is Ohio in the Senate of the United States. 

I ti'ust I may say without iinpi-opriety that honor in 
my judgjnent is enlianced by the circumstances attending 
this selection. To be first unanimously endorsed by the re- 
presentatives of my party in State Convention assembled, 
and then to have that endorsement approved by a majority 
of one huiulrt'd thousand at the polls, and no^v to have that 
endorsement and that ap[)roval accepted and ratified and 
confirmed by the unanimous vote of the largest representa- 
tion in the General Assembly of any political party ever 
known in the history of our State, is to make this as nearly 



14- 



tliG direct work of the joeople as it is possible under our 
constitution to make it. ( Ap[)lause) , 

That feature of tlii*^ election adds to the gratification 
T experience on this occasion. It does more, audit is because 
it does more that I make reference to it. It impresses me tliat 
it is my duty, as it shall always be my pleasure, to recall 
that I have been chosen not by a factional part, but by the 
whole united Republican party of Ohio. (Applause) . In 
consequence of that fact it shall be my pleasure, as well as 
duty, to ever remember that the Republicans of Ohio 
should one and all receive at my hands equal consideration. 
(Applause) . 

There is anotlier feature of this occasion pleasing to 
me, and I want to speak about tliat. It is the conduct of 
my Democratic fellow citizens of the State of Ohio, and of 
this General A3senlbl3^ It is true you did not support me, 
you did not vote for me. I can not tliank you for that, but 
I can thank 3'ou, and I do most sincerely, for the fact that 
your opposition has been purely and only })artisan. (A[)- 
})lause) . From the inception of this contest down to this clos- 
ing scene, I have enjoyed at your hands only the most distin,- 
guished courtesy and have been made by you the recipient 
of unvarying ]narks of personal regard and personal esteem. 
(Applause). Be. assured I ai)pi'eciate it; l)e assured I 
thank you for it ; be assured it adds to the pleasui'e it will 
always be for me whenever I can consistently do so to serve 
you to the utmost of my ability. (Great applause). It 
makes it easy for me in going to the Senate to remember 
that I am there to represent the State, the whole State, and 
all the people in the State. 

I go there, however, as a Republican. (Cheers). I 
belong to thatparty. I believe in that party. (Applause) . 
I believe in its past ; I believe in its present ; I believe in 
its future. • I believe it is the most acceptable agenc}' we 
can command in the administration of our National affairs. 
1 believe it is better calculated than any other political or- 



%r 



ganization to contrihute to the strength, power, dignity, 
happiness and glory of tlie American people. (Great ap- 
plause) . Entertaining tliat belief, I shall at all times be 
found acting with tluit party. I shall uphold its organiza- 
tion and its discipline, without which no political party 
can acGomi)lisli its mission. (Great applause) . I shall be 
found advocating and supporting its measures, its policies, 
its doctrines and its purposes. 

To be more specific, I believe in the protection of 
American industries and American labor. (Great ap- 
plause). I believe that the revenues of tliis Government 
should bo ample to meet all its necessary expenditures 
when patriotically administered. (Applause). I believe 
in the restoration and tlie development of the policy of 
reciprocity, so liapjiily inaugurated under the Harrison 
Administration and so inconsiderately destroyed by this. 
(Applause) . 

I believe also that the time has come in the develop- 
inent of the American people and in tlie progress of our 
Nation when oui- commercial I'elations should be extended 
I believe our merchant marine should be upbuilded, to the 
end that American goods may be carried in American bot- 
toms under the American flag in all the channels of trade. 
(Applause). And I believe that tliis Government should 
possess a nav\' adeqnate to the protection of our interests 
and to command respect for our flag in all the waters of 
the woi'ld. (xVpplause). 

I believe also in tlie Nicaragua Canal. It is in- 
comprehensible to me how the American people, so 
able to accomplish it, should liave allowed that great 
enterprise to go undone until now ; that they should 
have been content when sailing from the Atlantic to the 
Pacific coast to go ten thousand miles out of the way 
around the Horn, through tempestuous seas and inclement 
seasons. I believe it is one of the great duties of the Amer- 
ican people to build that canal and to build it at once. 



(Applause). And I not only believe that they should 
build it, but that tliey should control it. (Applause). I 
believe they should build it and control it without co-[)art- 
nership with Great Britain or anybody else. (Applause). 
I believe that the only riglit which any people should be 
allowed to have with respect to it is the right to freely use 
it for all peaceful pursuits and upon payment of such rea- 
sonable tolls as may be enacted. (Great applause). 

I believe also in bimetallism. (Applause). I believe 
the world made a mistake when it demonetized silver. 
(Applause) . I sincerely hope some safe way may be found 
for the restoration of silver to its riglitful place alongside 
)f gold as a money of ultimate redemption, I sliall favor 
3very measure calculated, in my judgment, to bring about 
^hat result, subject always, however, to the condition that 
t provides for the maintenance of the parity of the two 
metals. (Applause). 

Every dollar of money issued by the United States 
Grovernment, whether gold, silver or paper, must be of ex- 
ictly equal value with every othei- dollar. (Applause) . 
riie United States can not afford to have a currency svs- 
:em or a money standard less good or less high tlian the 
)est in all the world. (Applause) . 

These suggestions only inadequately indie ite the he- 
•oic questions that are before us for settlement. If tiieybe 
•ightly solved, there is ahead of us in tlie immediate future 
I greater prosperity than the American people have ever 
?njoyed. (Loud applause) . And there is ahead of us, as 
)ur ultimate destiny, a greatness and a gi-andeur that no 
language has ever yet sufficiently described. The commis- 
-ion you have voted me authorizes and commands me to be 
I participator in the solution of these problems. I accept 
lie trust with a profound appreciation of the grave re- 
sponsibilities that are involved. 





^7 



E. 



/r 



Speech oi 

Hon. J. B. Foraker 

To the Republican Club of New York 

February 12, 1896, 
In response to the toast : 

^^THE REPUBLICAN PARTY." 



Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I sincerely thank you for so kind, so cordial, and so 
complimentary a greeting. I wish I knew how, better than 
I do, to make fitting response to it. It seems to me all I 
can think of to say is simply, I thank you ; but that I do 
with all my heart. 

In undertaking to address you, I labor under at least 
tw^o embarrassments. In the first place, I do not think I 
ever heard an abler, a more beautiful, a more appropriate 
speech than that to which we have just listened. (Great 
applause). And it seems to me that the very best thing I 
could possiby do would be to move that we adjourn in order 
that the impressions made by that address might be Iqft 
undisturbed upon our minds. Another embarrassment is 
that I recall, as I undertake to think of something to say 
in answer to this sentiment, that I once before addressed 
this same club upon this same subject, and told you then 
all I knew about it up to that date ; that cuts me off from the 
discussion, at least in large part, of the past of the Repub- 
lican party. But perhaps that is as well as otherwise, for 



2 

the past of the Republican party really needs that nothing 
should be said for it. It will take care of itself. It needs 
no eulogy. (Applause) . It is sufficient to say it is replete 
with glorious achievements. The great days and the great 
men of the Republican party of the past will forever chal- 
lenge the admiration of the world. (Great applause) . 
And as the past is full of glory, so is the present resplen- 
dent with triumph. No political party ever before won 
such victories as we are now enjoying at the hands of those 
who defeated us, for, in the hour of their ascendancy, there 
has come to us our most signal vindication. The Democratic 
party in power has been a sore trial for the country, but it 
has brought to all the rich blessings of experimental edu- 
cation. (Laughter and applause). As a result, the people 
of this country know more than ever before of the relative 
work of Republicanism and Democracy. They know more 
about our princijDles and less about theii-s. (Laughter). 
It is no longer necessary, and there is a great saving in 
that when we come to the campaign oratoiy, lo make an 
argument to demonstrate that if you manufacture a pro- 
duct abroad you do not need to manufacture it here. 
(Laughter). And even the most obtuse man can in the 
light of this experience comprehend that if other countries 
supply our wants the result is greater activity and pros- 
perity for them, with corresponding idleness and distress 
for us. We have passed from the ti'oubles of a surplus to 
the study of a deficit. (Laughter and applause) . We 
have seen our credit impaired, our currency deranged and 
an endless chain of demands and evils, resulting in l)ond 
issues, bond syndicat(\s and bond scandals. (Laughter). 

Without an exception, our liome policy has brought 
only rack and ruin, while our foreign policy has been an 
uninterrupted chapter of disappointment and mortification. 
To make a long storv shoi't, three vears of Democratic rule 
has deraon.strated the heresy of Democratic principles, and 



3 



established the wisdom and patriotism of ours. (Applause) . 

They have done more. They have made it manifest 
that there is absolutely no harmony of opinion among 
Democrats as to what Democracy means. (Laughter). 
You can scarcely find two of their leaders who can be said 
to be in strict accord as to what constitutes the Simon-pure 
article. (Laughter) . 

* They are hopelessly divided upon ever3^ great ques- 
tion. We have seen the House quarrel with the Senate ; 
the Senate quarrel with the House; both Houses quarrel 
with the President, and the President refuse to agree with 
anybody. (Laughter). 

In the presence of the whole nation, and at a time of 
the most serious peril and grave responsibility, we have 
been treated to exhibitions of " part}* perfidy " and the 
"communism of pelf," while months passed with nothing 
done except to demonstrate incapacity to do anytliing at 
all, and now, finall}^, as a sort of grotesque climax to tlie 
whole miserable business, we have been called to witness 
the spectacular performance of the successor of John C. 
Calhoun, a Senator of the United States fi'om the state of 
South Carolina; sail (laughter) , standing u|) in his place 
in the most august body on earth, and in the name of 
statesmanship, to use his own language, " sticking a pitcli- 
fork into tlie big, fat ribs of a Democratic President." 
(Laughter and applause). Such experiences as this have 
made it painfully clear that great, rich and powerful as our 
country is, there can be r.o prosperity unless wisdom, patri- 
otism and sound business sense are applied in the conduct 
of its affairs. (Applause) . 

Ever3^body knows, and nobody better ilian tlie Demo- 
crats themselves, that the Democratic pai'ty lacks all these 
essential requisites of success. (Applause). As a result, 
hundreds of thousands of them, preferring country to 
party, have bolted their organization and cast their lot 



wiih us. Thej voted with us last year, and tliej' will vote 
with us this year. Tlie elections of next November will 
triumphantly restore the Republican party to power, and 
the fourth of March, 1897, will mark tlie beginning of the 
second era of Republican rule. (Cheers). One can speak 
with confidence of past events and of existing conditions. 
It is seldom that we can forecast, without some misgiving, 
the future, but it is safe to predict that certain things 
will come to pass when the Republican party regains con- 
trol of tlie Nation. It is safe, I take it, to assume that 
practically without dissent or debate, there will be a re- 
vision of the tariff on protection lines (applause), to tlie 
end that our Government may have a sufficient revenue 
and our industries and labor a sufficient protection. (Cries 
of " Good ! ") . With equal unanimity, reciprocity will be 
restored and made a permanent feature of our commercial 
policy. With, perhaps, not so much unanimity, but witli 
absolutely as much certainty, the higli monetary standard 
Republicanism has ever represented will be upheld and our 
currency and banking systems will be preserved and per- 
fjcted. (Great applaus?). 

I pass all these matters by as undebatable, in order 
that I may have time left to speak a few" words with re- 
spect to two or three other subjects, concerning which the 
Republican party will have a duty to discharge, about 
which there may not be so much unanimity, thougli I hope 
tliere may be. Tlie first of tliese in both tliought and im- 
portance is 

OUR MERCHANT MARINE. 

(Apy)lause). Tliis is a vast and a complicated subject, 
impossible to be elaborately discussed, or discussed at all, 
in any proper sense of the word, in an after-dinner 
speech. I do not refer to it, therefore, for the purpose 
of discussing it, but only that I may, if, happily, T may 



y 



be able to do so, favorably attract attention to it. Speak- 
ing upon it in this way, allow me to remind you that 
when our fathers had achieved our political independ- 
ence, and luad organized our government, they recognized 
that their work was not done. They at once undertook 
the work of securing our industrial and commercial 
independence also. They succeeded. They accomplished 
their purpose by simply applying the principles of pro- 
tection to both land and sea. We are all familiar with 
the wonders wrought in tlie development of our resources 
through the agency of protective duties on imports, but 
apparently only the limited few are aware that our achieve- 
ments at home had their complete counterpart on the 
water. The basic proposition on which the fathers pro- 
ceeded was that it should be made advantageous to carry 
goods in American-built ships. (Cries of " Good !") . To 
that end they resorted to discriminating duties in tariff 
and tonnage. The result was a phenomenal development 
in sliip building and a marine that carried under the 
American flag at one time more than ninety per cent, of 
our imports and almost as large a percentage of our ex- 
ports. But, as bad luck would have it, they had tlie 
theorist with them in tliat day as we have him with us in 
this, and then, as now, his favorite theme was Free Trade. 
He succeeded in persuading Congress to agree with him, 
and as a result, b}^ a series of enactments ending in 1828, 
the last vestige of protection for American shipping was 
removed. 

The seductive phrase then employed was not *' the 
markets of the world," or "tariff reform," but "reciprocal 
libertv of commerce." But it meant, as these modern 
phrases do, simply free trade — free trade on the ocean — and 
the application of the doctrine, wdien made, brought to 
American shipping the same blight that has ever attended 
the application of that doctrine in our experience. Decline 



6 

at once set in, and tliirt}' per cent, of our foreign carriage 
had been lost when the war came and swept away twenty- 
five per cent, more of it. The work of saving the Union 
and solving the great problems growing out of that strug- 
gle, the problems of emancipation, enfranchisement, recon- 
struction and specie resumption, so pressed upon and 
occupied the Republican party that it had no opportunity 
to properly address itself to this subject until Mr. Cleve- 
land's first administration was over. 

Had President Harrison been re-elected, the probabil- 
ties are that something effective would have been done ere 
this ; but he was not re-elected, aiid the tide has relent- 
lessly run against us, until we now carry only twelve or 
tliirteen per cent, of our foreign trade. It can scarcely be 
said that we have any longer an American marine. There 
are a number of views in which this is both discreditable 
and unfortunate. In the first place, there is the patriotic 
viewp the pride every American should feel in seeing 
his countr^-'s flag in all the waters of the world. And then 
there is the Naval view ; a nursery of seamen to man our 
battle ships in time of war ; and then who can over-estimate 
the value of the employment it would afford to our people 
and our capital, or the indirect advantages that would result 
to us from the prestige it would give us in our trade rela- 
tions. 

But consider here for this evening only one feature of it, 
tlie direct indisputable financial results. Careful estimates 
show that we are paying aniuially more than one hundred 
and fifty millions of dollars in gold to foreign ships for the 
transportation of freiglit aiid passengers, every dollar of 
which should and would be i>aid to ourselves if our mer- 
chant marine was what it once was, or what, if we do our 
duty, it will be again. (Applause). 

It has been computed that within tlie last thirty years 
we have paid out in this wav more than five times the 



amount of all the gold balances which we have been com- 
pelled to export. It has gone far enough. The time has 
come to change it. What is the remedy? A great many 
have been suggested ; some good, some otherwise. I have 
no time here to enter upon the discussion of them, for the 
reasons I have already given you, and, therefore, I content 
myself with the simple declaration that the time has come 
for this great question to receive heroic treatment. Tem- 
porizing expedients will no longer answer. 

The first starting point in the whole business is for 
us to plant ourselves upon the broad, underlying, patri- 
otic proposition that we will not buy but build our ships. 
(Applause). 

The brand of America must be impressed upon every 
timber of every craft we sail (applause), and we must not 
relax our efforts until the United States flag again floats 
over ninty per cent, of our merchant marine. (Cries of 
'' Bravo ! "). Bounties and subsidies and subventions are 
good enouo-h in their way, but they are distasteful to the 
American people, and I have no faith in any policy that 
depends upon them. The practice of the founders of 
tlie Republic was wi§er and better. Let us return to it. 
Let us profit by their wisdom and experience. Discrim- 
ination in tariff and tonnage duties worked wonders once. 
It will doit again. Put' your bounties on American ships. 
Subject the free list of imports to the condition that they 
are brought into our harbors in American bottoms, under 
the American flag. (Applause). xVllow a rebate of ten per 
cent. on all dutible goods of our own carriage. (Applause). 
And when we come to a treaty of reciprocity, engraft upon 
it as one of its provisions that the goods mentioned in tlie 
treaty shall have the benefits of the treaty only on condi- 
tion that they be carried in the ships of the reciprocating 
countries. (Applause). Protect American marine insur- 
ance and American shipping from the tyranny, the oppres- 



8 

sion, the injustice that have been practiced by foreign 
marine insurance for a third of a century, and the work 
is done. (Applause). But, says some one, there are treaty 
stipulations standing in the way of some of these sugges- 
tions. That is true as to some of them, but that only 
suggests the starting point in this patriotic work. We have 
experimented with this condition of things long enough. 
If there be anything standing in the wa}^, it must be mod- 
ified or abrogated. That is our right ; that is our privilege ; 
that is our duty toward the American people. In short, it 
must be understood, and that is all I want to say about it, 
that America must be free to take, and hold, and enjoy her 
rightful place on the oceans tliat belong in common to all 
the nations of the world. (Great applause). 

And now, hand in hand with that, goes another dut}'', 
a duty that every patriotic heai't should sanction, a duty 
that has been impressed uj)on us by recent events. We 
must not only recover our merchant marine, but we must 
have a navy able to protect it and to command respect for 
the flag wherever it is. (Great applause) . 

And as a fit complement of an American marine and 
an American navy, we should at once build an Ameri- 
can ship canal across Nicaragua. (Applause). It is in- 
comprehensible that the American people should have 
been content until now, when sailing ships from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific coast, to go ten thousand miles 
out of the w\ay, around the Ploru, through tempestuous 
seas and inclement seasons. The commerce of the world 
demands the building of that canal, and if we do not build 
it somebody else will build it. Every suggestion of patriot- 
ism prompts and commands us to the work. (Applause). 
We should not only build it, but control it. No one else 
should have any co-partnership in it with us. (Applause). 
It should be open to the free use for all peaceful purposes 
of all other nations, subject to the condition that they 



9 

4 

pay such roasonable tolls as we may see fit to exact. (Ap- 
plause) . 

Tliese, my Republican friends, not to detain you 
longer, arc three majestic works. They are worthy of the 
party that saved the Union and gave to immortality the great 
names of Ijincoln and Grant. (Apphause) . Their under- 
taking will be a fit crowning of the chjsing centur}', and 
their consummation will bring wealth, power, hapi:)iness, 
honor, gloi'y, magnificence and grandeur to the American 
people, and so entrench the Republican party in the hearts 
of all this peo[)le that neither you nor I will live long 
enough to see another Democratic President. (Cries of 
" (lood ! " and applause, and " Three cheers for Foraker ! ") . 



ij 



J 



4 



at 




Joseph Benson Foraker. 



/^ 



» 



Cestlmcnial Souvenir 



loscpb Benson Toraker 



SRctch of the Cincinnati Banquet given in his Ronor on tbc Occasion of bis 

election as Senator of the United States for Ohio, 

Tebruarv 22. m<) 



^ 



" fl Patriot's is a dangerous post 
mbcn wanted by bis Country most" 



Under Direction of Senator Toraker' s Triends 



By George mathews 



Cincinnati, n^d 



PRESS OF 

The Jones Brothers Publishing Co. 
cincinnati, o., 1896 



I/O 



A TRIBUTE. 

In leadership the foremost man is he 

Who stands for country and, with lifted hand 
Calls to the patriot people ! his command — 

A clarion cry heard far by land and sea — 

Awakes the holy passions of the free ! 

Grave senates hear him, and his native land 
Makes him her watchman in her towers, to stand 

And cry the ''All is welP' of Liberty ! 

Lo, such is he who rises for his State, 

And leads her thought, and battles in her cause. 
And wears fresh laurels in her glorious name I 
Hero and captain, champion in debate, 

Man of the people, maker of their laws. 

Neighbor, and friend, and statesman full of fame. 



/// 



Joseph Benson Foraker. 




Prefatory 

HE occasion which has called forth this simple 
brochure and tribute is easily understood. A dis- 
tinguished citizen of Ohio, honored by the people 
of the Commonwealth, received on the birthday 
of the Father of our Country, 1896, a testimonial banquet 
given by the citizens of Cincinnati as a mark of their esteem 
and admiration. The recipient of this honor was Senator-elect 
Joseph Benson Foraker, whose name for a full score of years 
has been identified with the public life of Ohio. The recent 
mark of esteem and confidence was one of many such tributes, 
but it had an important and peculiar significance. The event 
distinguished the accession of Mr. Foraker to one of the highest 
electoral dignities in the gift of any people. 

The United States is the greatest free government in the 
world. The Senate of the United States has no equal as a 
body of deliberative councilors. It is peculiarly constituted. Its 
members represent commonwealths as such, and the peoples 
of the respective commonwealths in their aggregate and several 
capacities. Though all Senators are of equal rank, there is a 
sense in which they are most unequal. In their representative 
capacitv the\^ may stand for small commonwealths, or for states 
of imperial extent. 



Y 



Such an imperial State is Ohio. Third among the members 
of the Union in population and wealth, she may be regarded 
as one of the greatest free communities existing on earth. 
To represent such a State in the greatest senatorial 'body of 
the world, is a distinction of which the most ambitious citizen 
may well be proud. To be called to such a station at a time 
of life when most men are still regarded as young, corres- 
pondingly increases the honor. It is proper that a recipient of 
so great a distinction should feel a manly and ennobling sen- 
timent of pride at the honor done him by his fellow-countrymen. 

Joseph B. Foraker is a man so honored. He is Senator- 
elect from the great state of Ohio. He is a Cincinnatian. 
He has long been identified with the public welfare of this 
great city, and the people of Cincinnati have recognized in 
this ev^ent an opportunity of compliment to a leading citizen. 

It has been thought that the complimentary banquet given 
to Mr. Foraker at the Cathedral of the Scottish Rite in 
token of the appreciation of the people of Cincinnati, should 
not pass without leaving some record of itself more per- 
manent than the passing memory of a busy population. It 
is for this reason that the facts, circumstances and speeches 
of the occasion have been gathered and put into a permanent 
form in this testimonial pamphlet which is sent to the friends 
of Senator Foraker as a token of friendship and goodwill. 

The Senator is not himself responsible for this publication, 
or for the terms of compliment in which it is made. It is 
wholl}- the work of his friends, who design it as a tribute to 
a man who has won the applause of the Nation, and at the 
same time retained the atlectionate re^jard and confidence of 
his friends and neighbors. 



// 



\3 



Blodrapbicah 



^JOSEPH BENSON FORAKER, recently elected 
pai* Junior Senator of the United States trom Oliio, is 
a native of this Commonwealth. He was born 
near Rainsborough in Highland County, Ohio, on 
the 5th of July, 1846. He has not yet completed 
his fiftieth year. In both mind and body he is young, elastic, 
full of spirits, warmed with a laudable ambition, and kindled 
with what the author of Ecce Homo calls '• enthusiasm of 
humanity.'' The parents of Senator Foraker are still living. 
They belong to the class of people who cultivate the soil, 
and at the same time cultivate men and women. Joseph B. 
Foraker spent the first years of his life on a farm in close 
touch wnth the ground and in sympathy with the ennobling 
influences of nature. 

Passing from the period of his early boyhood, and with 
no note of his school-days in the country, we find him at 
the age of sixteen enlisting in the Union Army. He volun- 
teered as a member of Company A, in the 89th Regiment of 
Ohio Volunteers. The date of his enlistment was July 14, 1862, 
nine days after his sixteenth anniversary. A young soldier — 
but manv such followed the flag and fousfht our battle. 

Young Foraker served with his regiment until after the 
fall of Atlanta. By that date he had risen to the rank of 
First Lieutenant. After the capture of Adanta he was de- 
tailed for service in the signal corps and was assigned to duty as 
a signal ofiicer on the staff of Major-General Slocum, who was 
in command at that time of the left wing of Sherman's army. 



aA 



After the march through Georgia and the CaroHnas Lieu- 
tenant Foraker was promoted to the rank of Brevet-Captain 
of United States Volunteers and was assigned to duty as 
Aide-de-camp on the staff of General Slocum. This position he 
held until he was mustered out of the service at the close of 
the war. That event found him, at the age of nineteen, a 
veteran of three vears' service. 

After the war Captain Foraker resumed the studies which 
he had cast aside in order to enlist, and became a student 
at Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. From that institution he 
was graduated at the close of his twent3'-third \'ear, in the 
summer of 1869. During his collegiate course he took up and 
prosecuted the study of law, so that after his graduation he 
was able to begin to pracdce. He came to Cincinnati and was 
admitted to the bar on the 14th of October, 1869. From 
that date — distant from the present by more than twentv-six 
years — he has practiced the duties of his profession in Cin- 
cinnati, with only such disturbances as have been incidental to 
his public life. 

On the 4th of October, 1870, Mr. Foraker was married 
to Miss Julia Bundy, daughter of Hon. H. S. Bundy, of 
Wellston, Ohio. Of this union have been born five children — 
two sons and three daughters — a happy family, all of whom 
survive. 

The public life of Captain Foraker began in April of 1879, 
when he was elected Judge of the Superior Court of Cincin- 
naU. This position he occupied until the first of May, 1882, 
when, on account of ill-health, he resigned the duties of the 
judgeship. On his recovery, however, he resumed the prac- 
tice of his profession in the city of his choice. In 1883 he 



y^. 



received the nomination of the Republican Party for Governor 
of Ohio, but was defeated by his Democratic opponent, Judge 
Hoadlv. In 1884 Mr. p-oraker was a delegate to the National 
Republican Convention and was chairman of the Ohio delega- 
tion. In that relation he put in nomination tor the Presidency 
Senator John Sherman. In the following year he was a second 
time nominated for Governor against Judge Hoadly and was 
successful. He was chosen Governor of the commonwealth by 
a handsome majority. In 1887 he was a second time elected 
to the same office. In the following year he was again a 
delegate to the Republican National Convention, and was 
chairman of the delegation from Ohio. In this convention 
also it w^as his duty to place John Sherman m nomination for 
the Presidency, but the nominee failed of gaining a majority 
of the delegates. 

In 1889 Mr. Foraker was for the fourth time named for 
Governor, but was defeated by ex-Governor James E. Camp- 
bell. Mr. Foraker then remained in private life until 1892, 
when he became a candidate for the office of Senator of the 
United States for Ohio. He received thirty-eight votes but 
w^as defeated by Senator Sherman. In this year he was tor 
the third time delegate at large to the Republican National 
Convention and served in that body as chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Resolutions. 

By this time the term of Hon. Calvin S. Brice in the 
United States Senate was drawing to a close and the voice 
of the people of Ohio was strongly heard in behalf of Mr. 
Foraker for the position. In the State Convention at Zanes- 
ville, held on the 28th of May, 1895, a resolution was unani- 
mouslv passed endorsing Mr. Foraker as the Republican 



candidate for United States Senator. At the ensuing Novem- 
ber election a Republican legislature was chosen by a majority 
of over one hundred thousand votes. The sentiment in favor 
of Mr. Foraker had become overwhelming, and when in 
January of 1896 the legislature assembled all show of opposi- 
tion had melted away. Without the formality of a caucus, 
and by the unanimous vote of his party, he was elected to 
the Senate of the United States for the term of six years, 
commencing with the 4th of March, 1897. 

The State Republican Convention of 1896 was held in 
Columbus on the loth and nth of March. Senator Foraker 
presided over the convention as its chairman and was by 
acclamation chosen for the fourth time to represent the State 
of Ohio as one of its delegates at large to the Republican 
National Convention to be held at St. Louis on the i6th of 
the following June. 

Such is the briefest outline of the career of one of the 
great men of Ohio. Senator Foraker is in his prime. He 
is regarded wnth admiration not only by the people of the 
State which he honors and that honors him, but also by the 
people of the whole Nation. He is primarily a man of the 
people. His sympathies are broad and patriotic. He is strongly 
on the side of the people and is devoted to American interests 
in the hiMiest and best sense of that term. His instincts as 
an old soldier of the Union are blended wdth the patriotism 
of the civilian, composing a character as admirable as it is 
humane. The good wishes of the people of Ohio will follow 
him to his high place in the Senate with the same confi- 
dence and pride with which they have regarded him in all 
the previous stages of his eminent career. 



// 



7 



Cbe Banquet. 



// 



f 



Comttiittcc of jFlrrangcntcitts. 



JOHN A. CALDWELL, Chairman. 
SAMUEL W. TROST, Sec'v. 
GEORGE N. STONE, Treas. 
THOMAS MORRISON. 
J. G. vSCHMIDLAPP. 
MAURICE J. FREIBERG. 



ANDREW HICKENLOOPER. 



THOMAS P. EG AN. 



RALPH PETERS. 



vSAMUEL N. FELTON. 



PERIN LANGDON, 



C. M. HOLLOWAY 




ScoTi'iSH RiTi.; Cathedra;. 



/X-/ 



Cbe Banquet. 




HE leading citizens of Cincinnati were unwilling 
that Senator Foraker should remove to Washington 
to enter upon his duties without tendering to him 
some public and formal mark of the esteem in 
which he is held by his home community. It was determined 
that a public banquet should be tendered him, and for this 
purpose the Scottish Rite Cathedral on Broadway was selected 
and the date of Washington's birthday chosen for the occasion. 
The banquet was in all respects a brilliant and successful 
affair. The guests were, for the most part, citizens of Cin- 
cinnad and the personal friends and neighbors of the Senator- 
elect. They were the men with whom he has been asso- 
ciated in the varied aud arduous duties of life for many years. 
They had watched his progress, had sympathized with him in 
times when the tide seemed to set against his fortunes, and 
congratulated him when the wave bore him onward to success 
and honor. Now they met to pay their tribute to him as a 
representative of the great commonwealth of Ohio in the Senate 
of the United States. 

Mr. Foraker had not for some days been in good health 
though his spirits were unabated. It had been feared that he 
would not be able to participate in the pleasures of the ban- 
quet, but it is in the nature of such men to rally according 
to the occasion. Suffice it to say that the Senator did not 
disappoint his friends but surprised them rather with the 



Y 



brilliancy and spirit of his manner and address. His speech 
was marked by all the features which have made his oratory 
so pleasing and effective ; his utterances had the old clear 
ring ; his emphatic declarations of Americanism and patriotism 
touched the right chord and found a harmonious echo in the 
hearts of all his hearers. 

The table at which the guest of honor and others of his 
immediate friends sat was beautiful in its arrangement and 
decorations. The hall in every part was tastefully draped and 
adorned. The floral decorations were especially fine. Above 
the principal table "Old Glor^- " was hung out in several 
forms and looped up with the figure of an eagle. The 
motto above was "Our Senator" and this sentiment was re- 
peated in several places In the center of the flag displayed 
was the portrait of Senator Foraker done to the life. The 
Committee of Arrangements had placed behind the speaker's 
chair a hedge of e\'^rgreen which furnished a pleasing back- 
ground to the distinguished group. The whole surrounding 
was tasteful and inspiring. The Committee had selected the 
honored Mayor of Cincinnati, John A. Caldwell, as toast- 
master. The Mayor never appeared to better advantage ; his 
remarks were received with enthusiasm and were regarded as 
especially appropriate. The guests were seated and the dinner 
began at half past seven in the evening. The feast proper 
lasted about two hours when Mayor Caldwell rapped for order. 
By this time all chill of formality had passed away and the 
spirits of those assembled had risen to the level of the occasion. 
There were none present who did not enter heartily into the 
celebration. 



/ r^ 




J. A. CALDWELL. 



>o 



Speech by Hon. J. A. Caldwell. 



OUR GUEST, . . . Hon. John A. Caldwell. 

" Heroes in history seem to us poetic, because they are there. 
But if we should tell the simple truth of some of our neighbors, 
it would sound like poetry." 

Fellow-Cincinnatians : 

" Your hearts and mine are glad to-night. On either hand is an 
every-day trusted friend; across and around this board are our neigh- 
bors, our business and professional associates, those whose lives are open 
books to us. We know the story of their beginnings, of their roman- 
ces, of their aims and ambitions; of their life achievements and triumphs. 
We know how much of manliness and worth is written there; we know, 
and are proud and glad to know, that these, our neighbors and friends 
stand for much that is greatest and best and most progressive in the 
Cincinnati of to-day. 

Merited distinction — honest fame, can come to no one without his 
associates and friends, compatriots and fellow-citizens, all being the 
gainer. The Cincinnatian who wins his spurs in life's contest — who 
gains the world's applause, and receives signal honors from his fellow- 
men, places amaranthine garlands over every Cincinnati threshold, and 
makes a mecca of this fair city to which the hero-worshipers of all time 
will make sacred pilgrimages. 

And we, my fellow-citizens, are met to-night to give expression as 
best we may, to the personal gratification and happiness it brings to 
us, that he who is our guest of honor and who is also our fellow- 
Cincinnatian, our neighbor, and personal, intimate friend, the very 
man we have long hailed as one of the foremost Cincinnatians — our 



-y T 



greatest political leader and chieftain, who we know to be worthy of 
every preferment that an admiring, loving people can bestow, has again 
been asked to step np higher — and you and I rejoice and are exceed- 
ing glad that this preferment has come to him and with an unanimity 
of party support unprecedented in all the liistory of first term elec- 
tions to the National Senate. 

Our guest has long been a commanding national figure, filling 
the public eye — at once the Richelieu and Admiral Crichton of all that 
pertains to state-craft and politics, sharing honors with Sherman and 
McKinley as one of Ohio's political triumvirate, a triumvirate as pre- 
eminent in national affairs of to-day, as was Ohio's galaxy of generals 
in the War of the Rebellion — Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, whose 
undimming fame shines forth resplendent — the most glorious constella- 
tion in all the star-studded night of war. 

What memories the very name of Foraker conjures; when the brass 
throat of war thundered forth his country's need — we see the stripling 
farmer boy take on the full stature of a man and a hero — and march 
forth to battle valiantly for freedom and for right. Neither hireling 
nor dastard he — but a volunteer, brave and true, who wrung pro- 
motion from the hand of power by dint of valor and personal merit — a 
mere boy in years, but in all else a man doing a man's deeds. 

We see this soldier put off the uniform and don the garb of the 
civilian, and take up the humdrum life of a student, the better to equip 
himself for the walks of peace. We see him adopt one of the learned 
professions and rise in the line of that profession to the bench of the 
Superior Court of Cincinnati. We .see him take on the burdens of a 
public career — become the idol of ever}- hustings — whose logic and 
eloquence and personal magnetism convinced and swayed the multi- 
tudes ; all the Nation knew when he was in the saddle, when his 
trenchant tongue — a keen Damascus blade — was making thrust, and 
parry, and stroke, that found and laid bare every weakness and flaw in 
the armor of his adversaries. 

We see him become the leader of the 3'oung, aggressive, enthusi- 
astic element of his party — binding their hearts to his with cords of 
steel. We see him twice chosen by the suffrages of the people — Gover- 
nor of his state and become the very pillar of his party's hope. We see 



/-^rf- 



him a man of deep personal convictions; fearless in defense of the right 
as he sees the right; hating cant and sham, with an especial hatred for 
all Pharisaical hypocrites who wear an — I am holier than thou self- 
adjusted halo. 

We know him as a practical man who believes in practical politics; 
we know him to be a man of ideas and resources — one who never cries 
aloud in worship of an echo. We know him for what the whole country 
knows him, an able statesman, a bri.lHant orator, a profound thinker — 
but you and I, my hearers, also know him as a friend and neighbor. 
We know his heart is a human document in which he writes the names 
of his friends in indelible characters. We know him as a father, and 
husband and brother, doing his man's part as only a loving, generous, 
manly, masterful man can do it — and who fully reahzes that station and 
rank and wealth — the plaudits of his fellow men, the external insignia 
of success verily brings its own reward — but that beyond the utmost 
purple of that illimitable ambition, there exists a wider horizon of 
friendship and love. 

The great state of Ohio is wont to produce sons to be proud of— 
and she is prouder of this younger son; she will see to it that his is no 
entailed estate, that no law of primogeniture cut him off portionless. 
She has given him a United States Senatorship, and there is no greater, 
broader field of action and usefulness, of honor and trust; public or 
private within the possibilities of man, that her admiring, loving, 
patriotic people would not be happy to bestow upon our guest of honor 
— Joseph Benson Foraker — Senator-elect from Ohio. 

I have the very great honor and pleasure of presenting the Hon. 
Joseph Benson Foraker, Senator-elect from Ohio." 



RESPONSE, . . . Hon. Joseph B. Forakkr. 

Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen : 

' ' r wish I knew how better than I do to make fitting response to 
such an introduction and to such a welcome. Words seem to fail me. 
I can think of nothing other or better to say than simply, I thank you. 
(Applause.) That I do with all my heart. I thank you, Mr. Mayor, 



L 



for the kind words you have so beautifully and so eloquently spoken. 
I do not know what could make them more gratifying unless it would 
be that, happily, somehow or other, I could be persuaded I merit 
them. (Applause.) And I thank you, gentlemen, one and all. If I 
had been allowed to prearrange the circumstances attending my elec- 
tion to the Senate, I could not have ordered them so as to be more 
gratifying than they have been down to this point. (Cheers and 
applause.) 

It was gratifying, in the first place, to be elected, as it has been 
said, without any opposition from my own part3\ It was gratifying, in 
the second place, to be elected with so little opposition from the other 
party. (Laughter and cheers.) And it has been gratifying beyond 
anything I shall undertake to express for me to have been made the 
recipient, as I have been, at the hands of my Democratic friends, of 
constant kindnesses, courtesies and marks of personal regard and per- 
sonal esteem, from the beginning of this contest until this moment. 
(Great applause.) But nothing has occurred in all these incidents and 
features to which I have referred so gratifying as this occasion itself. 
(Applause.) You, gentlemen, are my neighbors and my friends ; you 
are the men in whose midst I have lived for more than a quarter of a 
century. IMy goings out and comings in have all been in your presence. 
I am better known to you and by you than to or by anybody else. 

For me to see gathered here to-night the representatives of all the 
professions, and of every kind of business that is pursued in our city I 
and especially for me to see gathered here in such goodly numbers my 
Democratic friends, is gratifying beyond anything I can express. 
(Great applause.) I thank my Republican friends most sincerely, but 
I do especially, and from the bottom of my heart, thank my Democratic 
friends. (Cries of "good, good," and applause.) You make it easy for 
me to feel, as I do, under such circumstances, in going to the Senate, 
that I go there to represent the State and the whole State and all the 
people in the State. (Applause and cheers.) Whenever I can con- 
sistently do so, it will be a pleasure to me to serve ^'ou. I want to be 
ycur Senator, as well as the Senator of my Republican friends. (Re- 
newed applause.) 

And now, gentlemen, about that ser\ace. I have some misgi\dngs 
about it. I have never had any experience in a legislative body or any 



/x 



7 



kind of a parliamentary assemblage. I do not know how I will get 
along. (Cries of 'Oh, you're all right; you'll get along.) I forsee 
some difficulties. I am so constituted by nature that I reach conclusions 
quickly, and sometimes have not as nuich patience as I should have 
with those who do not agree with me. (Laughter and cheers.) I fear, 
therefore, that in that 'most august assemblage on earth,' as it has 
been termed, I shall be wearied and less useful than I otherwise would 
be when those long, tedious debates occur about which we have been 
reading so much during the last two or three years. (Applause.) But 
notwithstanding that drawback, I intend to take the place. There are 
some compensations to offset it. 

In the first place, it is a great compensation to follow in the line of 
succession such distinguished representatives as Cincinnati has had in 
that body during our day and generation; (Applause and cries of ' 'good! 
good!") George E. Pugh (applause) , Stanley Matthews (applause) , and 
George H. Pendleton (applause). However we may differ as to their 
respective political views and opinions, we all can agree in ascribing to 
them, one and all, irreproachable integrity of character and the highest 
order of intellectuality. (Great applause.) 

There is another compensation in the fact that I am to be the col- 
league of that grand old representative of Republicanism, who has been 
there, lo, these many j-ears, in the person of John Sherman. (Applause.) 
But there is something more attractive than all that to me in going to 
the Senate at this time. That is the character of questions with which 
we will have to deal. I do not speak in this connection of partisan 
questions. If the Democratic party should be in power I imagine I 
would not have much influence in shaping its policy. (Voice: "You 
would not; that's right. ") (Applau.se.) If the Republican party be in 
power its policies are already shaped. (\'oice: " That's right.) With 
practically no dissent, all questions of tariff, reciprocity and currency 
will be settled according to those policies. The questions I refer to are 
broader than these. 

The time has come when there is an emphatic demand for a wise, 
broad, patriotic, progressive, aggressive American statesmanship. (Tre- 
mendous applause and cheers.) I do not like the idea of our being un- 
able to step out at either our front door or back door, on the Atlantic or 
the Pacific side, without seeing England's flag floating from all the 



•y 



f 



islands that meet our view with her guns pointing wheresoever she will. 
(Great applause and renewed cheers.) When the Sandwich Islands 
come knocking at the door with a Republican form of government and 
the American flag, I say let them in. (Tremendous applause.) When 
a civilized country turns civilized war into barbarism, as Spain is doing 
in Cuba, I say, in the name of this Republic and in the name of repub- 
lican institutions everywhere, as well as in the name of civilization and 
Christianity, it is our mission to put a stop to it. (Great applause.) 
And if as a result the stars and stripes should happen to float over that 
island, it would be no bad acquisition. (Applause.) 

I want to see the Monroe doctrine, recently so much talked about, 
upheld and enforced against all the world. (Applause.) And I shall 
stand by the administration that stands for America, be that administra- 
tion Republican or Democratic. (Cheers.) 

I want to see our merchant marine restored. There was a time 
when our merchant marine was the pride of every American. It is to- 
day but a mortification to us all. We once carried ninety per cent, of 
our foreign trade in American bottoms, under the American flag. We 
now carry less than thirteen per cent. We are paying out annually 
more than $150,000,000 in gold to foreign ships for transportation of 
freights and passengers. The time has come to remedy that. The way 
to remedy it is not with subsidies and bounties, but by going back to 
the first principles practiced by George Washington and the founders 
of this Republic when they applied the principles of protection to the 
water as well as to the land. (Applause.) 

I want to see the Congress of the United States provide that the 
fifty per cent, or more of imports that come into our country free of duty 
shall come in free, provided they come in American bottoms and under 
the American flag. (Applause.) I want to see it provided that the 
dutiable goods brought in American ships shall be allowed a rebate on 
that account. (Applause.) 

And when we make these new reciprocity treaties, which we hope 
to make soon in the future, I want to see incorporated in every one of 
them a provision that the goods mentioned in the reciprocity treaty 
shall have the benefits of that provision, provided they are carried in 
the ships of the reciprocating countries. (Great applause.) When 



'^^^ 



that shall be done, as done it can and should be, there will no longer be 
an elbowing by Great Britain of the American marine off the waters of 
the globe. (Applause.) 

Shipbuilding will revive, and once again the flag of the United 
States will be seen floating in all the channels of trade and commerce. 
( Cheers.) And then after that will follow easily and naturally what we 
should have had ere this, an American navy able to protect us, let come 
what ma3^ (Applause.) When Mr. Cleveland sent to Congress his 
\''enezuelan message it had more good results than one. One of its good 
results was to impress the American people with our defenseless situa- 
tion. We should realize that the great wars of the future, if there be 
any at all with which we are to be concerned, are far more likely to be 
on the Walter than on the land. We should order accordingly. It is a 
patriotic duty to do it. 

Then, there is another thing. I do not want to stop to discuss all 
these things, but I read in the newspapers this morning just what I 
have been looking for for a long time. I read, as you probably did, that 
in the city of New York there was }-esterday tendered by Europeans, 
the capital to build the Nicaragua Canal. Unless the United States of 
America build that canal somebody else will build it. ( Voices of 
" That's so." ) The commerce of the world demands it. 

People will not any longer be content sailing .ships from the Atlantic 
to the Pacific Coast, to go ten thousand miles out of the way around 
the Horn, through tempestuous seas and inclement seasons. Every 
suggestion of patriotism commands us to do that work. ( Applause. ) 
I want to see the United States build it, and own it, and control it 
(applause), without any copartnership with anybody, and without any 
other nation having any other right with respect to it except only the 
right to use it for peaceful purposes, on payment of such tolls as we 
may see fit to levy. 

I rejoice my fellow-citizens of Cincinnati, that I shall have oppor- 
tunity to participate in the solution of these great questions. It is but 
little I can do, but in my humble way whatever I can contribute will be 
most zealously contributed. ( Applause. ) These are works worthy of 
the American people. If we but prosecute them to that success which is 
po.ssible, there is in store for us a destiny greater and grander than any 
human language can describe. ' ' (Tremendous applause and cheers. ) 



1^ 



o 



Mayor Caldwell : 

Ohio has ever been fortunate in selecting her Governors. They 
have been men who came from the people and were of the people, and 
she made no exception in the selection of our present Governor in fol- 
lowing that rule. He is a Cincinnatian born ; was at one time a market 
boy, selling the products of his farm from a wagon upon our streets, 
filled the position of coachman, and he filled these positions with the 
same zeal, earnestness and integrity with which he is now filling the 
important position of Governor of Ohio. (Cheers and applause.) I now 
have the pleasure of presenting the Hon. Asa S. Bushnell, the Governor 
of Ohio. (Long cheers and applause.) 



&I 




ASA S. BUSHNELL. 



y^ 



-X- 



Speech by Gov. Asa S. Bushnell. 



OHIO, Gov. Asa S. Bushnell. 

"Glorious in history : rich in statesmanship : famed in presidents." 

Mk. Toastm aster and Fellow Citizens : 

An ex-governor of the state (not the one here present) said to xne 
on an occasion similar to this — a short time ago — " When you have re- 
sponded to the toast ' Ohio ' fifty times, as I have, yon will get tired 
of it." I am not willing to admit this, for I love Ohio too well to 
ever tire of sounding her praises. I never hear the name but my pulse 
quickens and a feeling of pride conies over me that I am one of her 
citizens. 

I feel as the boy did at the revival. The minister requested all 
those who desired to go to heaven to stand up. All arose but one 
good-sized boy, who remained quietly in his place. Then the minister 
asked those who wanted to go to the other place to stand up Not a 
soul got up. In astonishment he looked at the boy. "What is the 
matter with you, boy? Don't you want to go to either place?" 
" No," said he, "Ohio is good enough for me." So I say, Ohio is 
good enough for me. 

But a few days ago I visited the old mother of Ohio — the state of 
Connecticut. To-day Ohio has five times the population of the mother 
state, which a little more than a hundred years ago sent from her 
abundant population a colony of forty-eight of her sturd>- sons to 
found a new state west of the Alleghenies. Landing at Marietta, they 
established the first settlement in the Northwest Territor>-, from which 
has since grown five of the grandest commonwealths of the nation. 

Ohio ! Grand old Commonwealth I God bless her and her sons 
and daughters, wherever they may be. None more loyal than they ; 
their influence is felt wherever a new settlement is to be founded, a 
new city built, or a conflict for the right to be fought out I 



35 



That she is "glorious in historj' " I have but to refer to her 
achievements in war and in peace. And, first, allow me to refer to 
her achievements in war. She did not do much in the Revolution, but 
it was not her fault. If she had been born earlier she would have 
taken part in that struggle. While she took an active part in the 
Indian wars and furnished more troops than any other northern state 
for the war with Mexico, it was in the War of the Rebellion — the great 
conflict for the life of the nation — for the honor of the grand old flag — 
that she most distinguished herself. 

Ohio's response to the call of President Lincoln for 75,000 men 
was immediate. From all parts of the state came proffers of serv-ice 
from tens of thousands, and on the 19th of April — only four days after 
the call — the First and Second Regiments of Ohio Volunteers had been 
organized and were on their way to Washington. The Ohio militia, 
in pay of the state, was pushed into West Virginia, gained the first 
victories of the war, and drove out the rebel troops. Thus was West 
Virginia the gift of Ohio. Governor Debison, Ohio's first war gov- 
ernor, had ere this written, "Ohio must lead throughout the war," 
and she did. Early in 1864, when more troops were imperative, and 
President Lincoln was fearful another draft upon the people would 
result in failure. Governor Brough, Ohio's last war governor, called a 
convention of the governors of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, 
who, with himself representing Ohio, met on April 21, 1864, and 
notified Mr. Lincoln that they would furnish him 85,000 men for one 
hundred days, without a dollar of bounty or a single draft. It was a 
splendid contribution of the loyal West to the cause of the Union. In 
sixteen days after the call Ohio had supplied 34,000 men — or nearly 
one-half the number promised — and put them into the field armed and 
equipped. The arms of Ohio's sons in the field were sustained by the 
work of Ohio's daughters at home. As Ohio's soldiers were the first 
to gain victories, so the women of Ohio were the first to organize aid 
societies. In five days after the fall of Sumter the Soldiers' Aid 
Society of Northern Ohio was organized, and these noble women 
eventually distributed food and clothing to the amount of a million 
dollars. A similar organization was started in the southern part of the 
state, which was alike successful. 



/^^ 



When the war closed more than one-half the able-bodied men of 
the state had taken up arms for the Union, and Ohio had shown her- 
self to have been the most efficient of all the states, supplying, as she 
had, the most successful generals and the largest number of able men 
in the cabinet of the President and in the councils of the nation. 

Ohio is to-day in the very heart of the nation, and, being on its 
great highway over which its commerce and travel flow and where its 
people must mingle for an interchange and broadening of ideas, she 
must be national and broad in her poHcy and character. Her soil is of 
the richest and there is no one industry which predominates to give her 
citizens a one-sided development. Agriculture, manufacture, mining 
and commerce are so equally divided that she may be said to be the 
most evenly balanced state in the Union, and to this should be added 
prominence in education. 

The large number of colleges — cheap and accessible everywhere — 
have given multitudes the prime requisite of the higher education 
which is mental discipline and the use of the instruments of knowledge. 
In instructors in learning she has produced a host, and to-day in the 
department of religion she shows an unsurpassed spirit of Christian 
enterprise and self-sacrifice, leading all the states in the number of 
missionaries to heathen lands. 

The noble history of Ohio, the heroic character of her sons and 
daughters, signally shown by the eminent leaders she has produced in 
every department, will remain an imperishable inspiration to the young 
born upon her soil, to further advance the commonwealth in everything 
which will inure to her moral and material grandeur. 

' ' Rich in statesmanship ! ' ' Yes ; in the living and in those who 
have finished their mission and left their works to follow them. Chase, 
the great financier, an incident in whose life right here at home I can 
not refrain from relating. Here was the voting place of the great 
Secretary, and rarely did he miss coming here from Wa.shington to 
exercise the right of suffrage. On the occa.sion of an election in 1863 — 
I think it was — under the old regime, when there was always a great 
crowd around the polls, Mr. Chase came to his precinct to vote. The 
crowd separated to make clear a passage for Mr. Chase to reach the 
window to deposit his ticket. A large, brawny fellow, of Irish nation- 
ality, stood somewhat in the way, seeing which some one called out. 



r 



" Stand back, Mike, you don't vote the Republican ticket." " I know 
that," said he, "but don't you suppose I want to see the man that 
makes the greenbacks?" Mr. Chase smiled and touched his hat to 
the man who had such great respect for him as the author of the 
greenbacks, if he could not vote for his party. 

Stanton, the great War Secretary ! Another statesman of whom 
Ohioans can all be proud. Then Giddings, Wade, Thurman, Pendleton, 
and a host of others, make up in part the riches of Ohio in statesman- 
ship. Among tho.se who have contributed, and are yet to add luster to 
her crown of jewels, are Sherman, McKinley and Foraker. 

Virginia, the " Mother of Presidents," was famed for the great 
chief executives she furnished the nation ; but Ohio will herafter con- 
test the title of ' ' Mother of Presidents, ' ' and claim for herself that 
distinction, for what presidents of greater fame than Grant, Hayes and 
Garfield, men who brought great distinction to their state and to the 
nation in peace and in war? It is worthy of national consideration 
that no candidate for president from Ohio was ever defeated. 

Ours is a great .state in its resources and extent, but greater in its 
people. I love my state and my country, and I pray to Almighty God 
that He will give us vigor and energy and power until the pillars of the 
Union shall be planted so firmly in American soil that no power on 
earth shall be able to shake them. To make our government thus 
strong we must stand by it — not complain of it, but praise it ; not 
defame and abuse its highest officials, as has recently been done. 
While I believe in free speech, I hope that no man will be allowed to 
use such language in reference to the chief executive of this nation as 
was uttered in that most august legislative body, the U. S. Senate, by 
Senator Tillman, of South Carolina, without rebuke. If the state- 
ments were true, they were better luisaid ; if he had no respect for the 
chief executive, he should have respect for the high ofRce he holds, for 
he is the president of the greatest nation on earth. The people of our 
country should be taught to respect those who have been chosen to make 
and to execute her laws. 

We should adopt such policies as will furnish our government 
revenue sufficient to meet all obligations and make the nation still 
richer and still more powerful. To illustrate this, let me relate an 
incident which came under my observation a few years ago. It 



/13 (, 



occurred while traveling on the cars in the northern part of the state 
with a friend, formerly prominent in the politics of the state, and 
known to many of you. My friend, as we rode along, pointed out to 
me, first on one side and then the other, beautiful farms, which l)y 
economy and careful investment of his means he had been able to 
purchase. Finally, after the last one had been passed and I had 
congratulated him on his magnificent possessions, he said, in a half 
undertone, and with apparent satisfaction, " Friend Bushnell, a little 
money is a good thing to have ; it commands respect at home and 
abroad." 

Let us have our government rich, that she may build ships of war 
and have a navy equal to that of any nation on earth, to the end that 
we may demand that more respect be shown our citizens and our flag 
on land and sea. We have heard much talk of war of late. Our 
nation is not prepared for w^ar ; our navy could not cope with the great 
ships of the British. What we want is more money. Let us get that, 
then build war vessels, strengthen our forts, and then — though we hope 
" war has gone to come again no more " — if it does come, we shall be 
prepared for it, and be able to enforce our demand that England shall 
be more careful in fixing the boundary lines of her territory. 

Ohio must do her part in this further work for the greater glory of 
America. Our record has been such that there must be no failure in 
the future — no loss of opportunity to prove again that our state is 
always ready to advance the cause of Americanism, to do that which 
speaks of loyalty to our common flag, and tells again that which has 
been a pride to all Ohioans — the patriotism and the strength of our 
commonwealth. 

I congratulate all — and by that I mean the people of Ohio and 
of the nation, as well as those present at this gathering of some of 
Cincinnati's foremost citizens — upon the fact that another who, by 
training, education ability, patriotism and enthusiasm for his countr\-, 
will in but a little more than a year's time be received as a member of 
America's highest and most distinguished legislative body, and will 
therefore add to the fame which has ever attended the Senate of the 
United States. We all know this Ohio man. He is the honored 
guest of this evening, and one who occupies a more than prominent 



place in the affections of the people of this and other states. He is 
known as a self-made man, as a soldier who achieved a highly honorable 
record, as a jurist who was respected in all ways, as a chief executive 
of Ohio who gave a most excellent administration, and as a citizen who 
enjoys the approval of his fellow-men. 

Such a man as Joseph Benson Foraker can be, and I am sure will 
be, of inestimable value to his country and to his state in the U. S. 
Senate. He is equipped as few men are for the duty before him, and 
he has the desire to do his utmost for the common good. I wish him a 
long life of happiness and continued usefulness ; a life replete with all 
that can make the hearts of his friends rejoice. 

It has given me the greatest pleasure to be present to-night. I 
have delighted in the opportunity of again attempting to sound a faint 
measure of praise for my state and our people. It has been a source of 
sincere gratification to join you in doing honor to my friend Judge 
Foraker. It has given me great satisfaction again to meet old friends, 
and to clasp the hands of new ones. Gentlemen of Cincinnati, I con- 
gratulate you upon this dinner to your most distinguished citizen, and 
I thank you for having given me the privilege of addressing you upon 
so notable an occasion and upon so worthy a topic. 



IM.woR Caldwkll : 

The next toast, "Our Country." We have with us one of our 
distinguished citizens, w^ho has gained exceptional prominence in his 
profession, who will respond to this toast. I have the honor and 
pleasure of presenting the Hon. E. \V. Kittredge. (Long cheers and 
applause.) 



3i 




E. W. KITTRIvDGE. 



/^c^ 



Speech by Hon. E. W. Kittredge. 



OUR COUNTRY, . . Hon. E. W. Kittredge. 

" Be there a man with soul so dear! 
Who never to himself hath said, 
This is my own, my native land! " 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: 

The toast "Our Country," to be responded to on Washington's 
birthday, naturally recalls Washington's excellently wise advice to his 
countrymen as to the relations it should be our policy to maintain with 
the nations of Europe. 

The position of the United States as the foremost nation on the 
American continent is not merely one that should contribute to our 
national pride, and still less should it be allowed to stimulate any 
national arrogance, but it does carry with it a corresponding duty of 
high obligation to all the American nationalities. 

The peoples of the old world are organized under powerful govern- 
ments, with immense resources, with powerful armies, with resistless 
navies, and with all the wealth and means that the highest civilization 
of the world has accumulated. The Ability, if they had the desire, of 
either France or England or Germany to overwhelm the comparatively 
weak nationalities of Central or South America can not be doubted. 

It is a matter of profound concern to our country what should be 
our attitude to the questions and controversies that arise between these 
powerful European governments, on the one hand, and the weaker 
nationalities of the American continent on the other. 

The recent unpleasantness over the \'enezuelan boundary, happily, 
by the good sense and sober second thought of the English and Ameri- 
can people, now in the process of a peaceful solution, has brought the 
attention of the entire community to the consideration of the principles 



that underlie this whole subject, and that are of the highest importance 
to the welfare of this country and the peace of the world. 

When Mr. Olney asserts in his letter to Lord Salisbury that 
" to-day the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, 
and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposi- 
tion ;" and when the president practically asserts that the Monroe 
doctrine has become a part of international law ; if these assertions 
are true, the position of the United States is certainly one of great 
responsibility, and of very doubtful ladvantage to compensate for the 
obligations that it incurs. 

I believe the more correct statement of the fact is that the Monroe 
doctrine is a political dogma, and that like all dogma, it is subject to 
growth and development. Its interpretation is always very largely 
determined by the conditions at the time, and the circumstances 
attending any case to which it is sought to be applied. That the 
United States should look with disfavor upon every attempt of an 
European nation to oppress or despoil without right any American 
state, is inevitable. When such a controversy is pushed to its utmost 
limit, the unselfish defense of the weak against the strong, even to the 
extremity of war, is alike a wise and honorable policy for us as a 
nation, and it will surely command the support of the American 
people. But there should be no mistake about the principle upon 
which this policy rests. It is not at all that "the United States is 
sovereign on this continent, "-and it is not at all that we have the right 
or the duty to control the negotiations or treaties that other sovereign 
states may see fit to enter into. It is the just interest that we, as the 
foremost nation in America, have a right to take, and wisely take, in 
the free and unrestrained development of the institutions and commerce 
and prosperity of every American people. In the long future such a 
development is sure to be, in many ways, of the highest importance to 
us as a nation. 

The assertion of this national policy in the past has been in every 
instance opportune, and in its results has commanded recognition of its 
wisdom. It matters not by what name we call the doctrine — its sub- 
stance is that we have a direct concern in preser^nng the integrity and 
free development of every American nationality, and that as occasion 
arises we will interpose for the accomplishment of that object. 



/^ / 



The distinguished citizen whom we are here to honor has been 
known among those who would be ready, perhaps eager, to assert the 
right of our country to interv-ene in questions of this character. We 
may properly express to him the hope and belief that he will in the 
discharge of his high duties, firmly, but temperately, stand for the 
American principle which finds its common expression in the saying, 
"America for the Americans." 



Mayor Caldwell : 

The next toast is "The Law-making Power" of our country. 
Who so capable of responding to this toast as our beloved fellow- 
citizen, the ideal lawyer, the Hon. John W. Warrington ! (Cheers and 
applause.) 



^y 




\V. WXRRIN'CTOX. 



y^^ 



Speech b\' Hon. J. W. Warrington. 



Thk Law-AIaking Power, Hon. John \V. Warrington. 

" Law is the supreme will of the pe'0])le, cxj^ressed 
through their legislative bodies." 

We have no public power whose existence is so necessary and 
whose exercise is watched with so much anxiety as that wielded by our 
legislative bodies. Is this owing wholly to perverseness of political 
parties, to selfish influences, to want of patriotism, or to all combined ? 
Is it not due in large part to the indifferent way in which we regard 
and study the power? Shall we ever, as a nation, consider special 
training as always requisite to the science of legislation, as we do with 
respect to every other science or art, as also every occupation? We 
select some great legislators. But have they predominated ? Lord 
Campbell, when sitting as chief justice of the Queen's Bench, said of 
certain acts of Parliament : " One-half of our time is consumed in 
making sense of other people's nonsense." This is largely true in our 
own country. An instance occurred in England, where a penalty was 
claimed under a statute which declared that of any penalty recovered 
under it one-half was to go to the Crown and one-half to the informer. 
What was the feeling of both the informer and the Crown when they 
learned that the only penalty mentioned in the act was two years' 
imprisonment ? 

The right to make laws is the greatest of sovereign powers. No 
matter through what agency legislative power has ever been exercised, 
it has always controlled, and it must always control, the vital relations 
and the destiny of mankind. The trend of modern civilization, not to 
mention ancient instances, has been more and more toward confining 
the power within the limits of constitutions. These constitutions are in 
theory founded upon the consent of the governed. In order to ascertain 
the true limit of the law-making power inider any constitution it is 



}-!■ 



4- 



necessan- to know not only its exact scope as an entirety, but also where 
the right to amend it resides. For ilhistration, in England, Germany 
and France this right to amend is given to the legislative bodies them- 
selves. True, in Germany and France certain peculiarities as to form 
and majority must be observed, and in Germany it is claimed by some 
commentators that the Emperor ma>- defeat a change by refusing to 
promulgate the act. But it is plain that the legislator there may regard 
the ultimate limits of his constitution with more or less indifference, for, 
after all, an infraction would be but a potential change. 

In view of the conditions prevailing here, it is difficult for us fully 
to understand the nature of legislative power which includes the making 
of both organic and ordinarj- law. We have set bounds for our legisla- 
tures, and, indeed, for ourselves. We have done this through written 
constitutions defining powers, and through declarations respecting cer- 
tain inalienable rights, for the government both of the United States 
and of the states themselves. The power to change these instruments 
is guarded by modes fixed for referring proposed amendments, either 
directly or indirectly, to the people themselves. Thus constitutional law 
can not be made in this country by any legislative body alone. 

This limitation of the power of amendment in our country marks 
another important distinction between the law-making power here and 
that in the other countries named. If a legislative body here usurp a 
power not granted or violate an inhibition made by the constitution 
governing it, the judiciary is bound, whenever a proper case comes 
before it, to declare the statute void. And we have a universal custom 
thereupon to treat the statute as abolished. Our respected citizen, Mr. 
Bowler, has the courage to insist upon the right of an officer to deter- 
mine the validity of a statute which he is called on to carry out. If it is 
not w-ithin constitutional limits it is not a law. If, therefore, he is not 
right, at least to the extent of referring the act to the judiciary, then 
what becomes of the boasted safeguards of a written constitution ? But 
where the power to amend the constitution resides in a legislative body, 
that body itself becomes the final interpreter of its own action, and 
consecjuently the supreme power. 

It is therefore even more important that the legislator in our Con- 
gress should be able to interpret and elucidate the constitution of the 
United States, than it is for the legislator in any one of the other coun- 



^Y^ 



tries I have mentioned, to understand his constitution. It should be no 
less true of the American than it was of the Roman Senator, of whom 
Cicero said that: "It is necessary for a senator to be thoroughly 
acquainted with the constitution ; and this is a knowledge of the most 
extensive nature ; a matter of science, of diligence, of reflection, with- 
out which no senator can possibly be fit for his office. ' ' 

In order to take an active and intelligent part in legislation in our 
Congress one must have unusual ability and training. It calls for more 
than the faculty of criticism. It demands creative intellectual power. 
This power is rare. This power involves the faculty of seeing a public 
need and of originating an accurate plan to supply it. According as 
such a need increases in importance, so the minds fit to cope with it 
become fewer. 

Philosophers differ as to the true principle of reasoning in legisla- 
tion. For instance, Herbert Spencer diff"ered in this regard from Jeremy 
Bentham. But, remembering that Lord Macaulay placed the latter in 
" the same rank with Gallileo and with Locke," no one would question 
the correctness of Bentham, who said, in respect of legislation: "To 
know what is good for the community whose welfare is at stake con- 
stitutes the science ; to find the means of producing that good constitutes 
the art. ' ' When we apply this test to the demands and welfare of seventy 
millions of people ; when we understand that the legislator must know 
what is wise and effectual for that vast body and what effect his proposed 
statute will have upon all other existing statutes ; when we reflect that 
his action must conform with certain delegated powers of a written con- 
stitution, according as that instrument is construed by the judiciary ; 
when these things are all considered, then we shall gain some adccjuate 
idea of the character of duty which a competent legislator has to perform. 

But we still have only partially considered his functions. The 
power we are examining is to be exercised in the upjier branch of the 
American Congress. The Senate possesses also certain executive and 
judicial powers. These are not within my subject. I may say, how- 
ever, that it was thought by Alexander Hamilton that they would 
over.shadow the legi.slative power. But great as those two powers are 
the other has kept pace with and surpassed them in importance. All 
these powers combined were originally intended to be the conservative 
force, the anchorage between the lower house of Congress and the 



^(^ 



Executive. But while this is true in theory, would it not be more so in 
practice if our Senators were elected directly by the people ? Practically 
speaking, Ohio has just furnished an example. For who, during the 
last year, was in doubt as to the Senatorship ? 

Yet in spite of custom or courtesy, of petty jealousies or differences, 
of individual cases of demagogy or buffoonery, which temporarily 
shadow that body, the Senate as a " check and balance " in our system 
of popular government still stands unrivaled. 

Naturally such a place would attract great men. It brings its 
members into touch with the leading questions of the day. It affords 
competent and conscientious men the opportunity to render valuable 
service to their country. It presents rare chances for cultivating political 
science, statesmanship and the highest type of forensic debate. When 
dominated by strong and patriotic men it opens a fruitful field for the 
highest aims of laudable ambition. 

An Englishman's denial of any right in the Crown to govern except 
by law, was once illustrated to me by his saying : "I pass the Prince 
with indifference ; I pass the Premier or Judge with lifted hat. ' ' Indeed, 
when rightly considered, what aim could be loftier than a desire to make 
wise laws for the United States ? Ours is a Government of law. Our 
.sovereign is the law. True, as Mr. Lincoln said this is a " Govern- 
ment of the people, by the people, for the people." Yet the people 
govern through law. They yield to no earthly power except the law. 
It is part of the high office, then, of a Senator properly to interpret the 
reason of the people, their common consciousness of right and policy. 
Resolving this into form is the expression of the American sovereign. 
It at once becomes the idol and master of a vast Nation. 

No higher testimony can be given of the importance of such a scene 
of action than the names of great men who have been actors in the 
Senate. Webster and Clay, Sumner and Fes.senden, Pinckney and 
Calhoun, Douglass and Benton, Conkling and Blaine, Cha.se and Pugh, 
Wade and Ewing, Matthews, Pendleton and Thurman are some who 
have gone, and John Sherman is one who remains, of our illustrious 
line of American Senators. 

Ohio has just called to that body Joseph Benson Foraker. With a 
remarkable record as soldier, lawyer and judge, as governor and orator, 



/ V. 



possessing wide culture and striking versatility, he is splendidly equipped 
for leadership in the Senate of the United States. While he will not 
have to debate some of the great questions whose discussion made some 
of his predecessors immortal, and whose solution was wrought in the 
blood and treasure of the country, yet we still have questions of vast 
moment. Think of the example recently given of the ease with which 
the country, although nearly defenseless, could be launched into serious 
war. Think of what can be done by the law-making power toward 
providing for arbitrating international disputes, and toward procuring 
national defensive means when that plan fails. Think of the stimulus 
the law-making power can give to an American merchant marine, which 
could also be chartered with conditions for naval service in times of war. 
Think of the strengthening arm the law-making power can extend to 
the judiciary in repressing and controlling menacing social disorders. 
Think of the great questions of finance, especially of the importance of 
a measure to forever destroy the heresy that unequal things can be 
made equal by law. Think of the important economic questions which 
involve both our external and internal schemes of taxation. Think of 
a great Government like ours in piping times of peace borrowing money 
to pay current expenses. These and kindred problems call for the 
analysis of masterful and patriotic minds. 

We predict that Senator Foraker will contribute largely to their 
true solution. There is abundant room for the full play of his marked 
intellectual supremacy and acknowledged patriotism. He was supported 
and chosen for this high position by an unprecedented following and 
vote. We wish him God-speed. 



Mayor Caldwell : 

The next toast, "Our Internal Commerce," will be responded to 
by one of our most distinguished, most enterpri.sing and most successful 
citizens, the Hon. M. E. Ingalls. (Cheers and applause.) 




M. K. I NO A U.S. 



^ ^ ^ . 



Speech by Hon. M. E. Ingalls. 



Our Internal Commerce, . . Hon. M. E. Ingalus. 

" Commerce and industry are the best of a nation." 

Mr. Chairman, my Friends and Fel,low-Citizens : 

I would suggest that those of }'ou who are tired go home, and let 
the balance of us have a night of it. At this hotir of night and in this 
condition of the atmosphere, it will be impossible to make one heard 
unless we have j-our closest attention, and I have a very carefully 
prepared speech which will last for a long time. 

This entertainment is divided into two parts ; you have had a 
committee who have been very careful in preparing it ; they have 
labored hard, and one of the conditions was that all earl}- speeches 
should be carefully written out and submitted to a committee and after 
that they put in poor Melish and myself and told us we might go as we 
please. (Applause.) 

They have had one of the most beautiful models for speaking that 
ever was in the city ; I suppose every one of yoti read the Commercial- 
Gazette — if you do not, you ought to — and I do not charge anything for 
this advertisement. (Laughter.) A few days ago, they had an editorial, 
telling what an after-dinner speech ought to be. I understand that 
that was so important that it was submitted to the Directors of that 
company, and they were not quite sure of it and then they sent for 
General Ryan and asked him to look it over. (More laughter.) He is 
the Ward McAllister of Cincinnati on after-dinner speeches, and he 
said this course was right, and the result is that every speech this 
evening has been hewed on that line. Now, I am afraid that my friend, 
the Mayor, may think I am getting off the track and intend to talk 
about the city government and taxation. (Renewed laughter.) But 
you need not be afraid, I shall not say anything wrong. I am like 



^ 



the girl who started out in the early morning with her bloomers on, to 
take a spin on her bicycle. She met a minister — one of those people 
who can never see anything good in matters out of the usual course — 
and he said to her: " Miss, don't you think bloomers are wicked?" 
" Well," she said, " Parson, I don't know what you might have found 
in some, but there is nothing wicked in mine." (Long and continuous 
applause and laughter.) 

So I can say to you, gentlemen, that you can listen with composure, 
there is nothing bad in my speech. I am very glad to be here, how- 
ever and pay my tribute to our guest — not because he is a Republican 
Senator — for I did not vote for him — not because he is a distinguished 
Republican, for I am a Democrat, and he has said many unkind things 
of my party in his day, but he is no sneak and j^ou always know where 
.to find him. He has been a bold, manly fighter in politics and has 
given and taken. But I come here tonight with great pleasure to join 
in this celebration, because he is my friend and neighbor and I know 
him and love him for that. (Cheers and applause.) And I believe in 
dinners like this and believe that if you have a friend that you love, 
you should say so, and say so in the morning and before he gets too old 
to enjoy it. (Applause.) And in this city we have not had, perhaps, 
too many great men, and it is just as well that we should pay our tribute 
to those that we have and thereby we may teach others to go and do 
likewise. I hope for him in his career everything that he wishes. 

The career of a statesman is like a traveler climbing a mountain 
that reaches into the snow-clad air. It is a long and weary way, and 
if by chance he slips in climbing, he goes down to an unknown grave, 
politically. In these days, when the reporter is everywhere, when the 
telegraph flashes all over the country every word that is said, it requires 
something more of capacity to be a statesman than it did in the days of 
Webster and Cla>-, when they delivered a speech and took a week to 
revi.se it, and then gave it to the newspapers. (Cheers and applause 
and laughter.) So I hope that our friend may reach the summit of 
that mountain that he is climbing, and when he gets to the top let the 
plaudits of the world satisfy him. That is not everything that we work 
for ; in life there are many things that we strive for. Life is made up 
of various things, " honest love, honest work for the da}-, honest hopes 
for the morrow. Are these worth nothing more than the hand the>' 



/^/ 



make weary, the heart they have saddened, the life they leave dreary." 
No, there is something else that man works for and the reward he works 
for, the reward that he prizes more than anything is the respect and 
good will of his friends and neighbors. (Cheers and applause.) 

And oiir friend may go forth to Washington as your Senator — in 
later years he may reach a still higher j)lace, and I hope, personall}-, he 
may. (Renewed cheers and applause.) But no matter what honors 
may come to him, no matter what crowns ma}- hereafter reward him, he 
will turn back to this hour as the happiest of his life. 

He has been tried bj- his neighbors and they have approved of him. 
No higher commendation can a man want than that. And when he 
goes down to that Senate in Washington, I hope he will carry with him 
the same vigor and the same keenness for fight he has always had. 
I know of no body on earth that needs a man of his intellect, of his 
intellectuality and brain more than the Senate of the United States. 
(Long and continuous cheers and applause.) It looks to me as though 
the moss of years, as though the fruit of egotism has gathered there, as 
though communism and populism were making their last stand in the 
Senate of the United States, and I am glad that we are sending out from 
Ohio and from the city of Cincinnati, a man who can lead and, if neces- 
sary, fulfill the essential requirements of present demands. 

You have all read the story told by JSIacaulay of the old cavaliers 
of England, who were driven out of Kngland by Cromwell's troops ; 
they went to Germany and France and, while there, they saw these 
same soldiers drive before them the French and achieve victory. 
Although they were e.xiles and in a strange land, yet they were filled 
with delight that it was England that was winning the battle. So as 
our friend goes down to Washington to the Senate, while those who are 
Democrats may heave a .sigh that he is not of our political faith, we 
will still rejoice that he is from Cincinnati. (Cheers and applause.) 

But, gentlemen, I was told to speak upon the internal commerce of 
this country. (Laughter.) Why, on the twenty-.second day of February 
shall we talk dollars and cents ? What we need in Cincinnati is not 
trade, but more public spirit. (Applause.) What we need is not so 
many millionaires as a higher citizenship. (Renewed applause.) If I 
were going to pick out the best things in the history of our guest 
tonight, I should say that in his administration as Governor, the 



i'^ 



Bi-partisan Police Bill was passed, and the Police Commissioners were 
appointed ; the Bi-partisan Board of Elections were appointed ; the 
Board of Public Works, that laid our streets and expended our four 
million dollars, were appointed by him, and he can put these three 
things in his crown and wear them, for they are the best he will have. 
(Cheers and applause.) 

And now, gentlemen, I will not talk shop to you tonight. I might 
tell you that the great line from here to Washington is the Chesapeake 
and Ohio. (Laughter.) I might talk about the steel rails, the electric 
lighted trains, and trains on time. We will take the Governor down 
there, and if >ou all want to go and see him inaugurated, you can all 
go for a reasonable compensation. (More laughter.) But this is the 
night of all others, as I sa}-, when our thoughts should turn to our 
country. One hundred and sixty-four years ago was bom the greatest 
patriot that ever lived, and we should think of him and turn our 
thoughts to better things. ' ' Let the men who are men who hate mean- 
ness and lying be true to the \-ision that Washington saw." It is w^ell 
that once in a while we should turn our eyes from trade and traffic and 
turn them back to the history of our country and resolve that we will 
establish here a higher citizenship — that we will do more for humanity. 
What we ask here is. that our guest should lead and we will follow. 
(Cheers and applause.) 



Mayor C.\ld\vkll : 

The next speaker — Col. Wm. B. Melisli will respond to the toast 
"The Croaker." Col. Melish needs no introduction to a Cincinnati 
audience. He has been successful in commercial life ; prominent in 
social affairs ; and we presage for him a very honorable and brilliant 
military career. Now that he is promoted to that exalted military 
position of Colonel — Gentlemen — I present Col. Wm. B. MeHsh. 



$& 




W. 1'.. MI'I.ISII. 



/»r< 



Speech by Col. W. B. Melish. 



THE CROAKER, . . . Col. W. B. Mklish. 

■' An old frog lived in a dismal swamp 

In a dismal kind of n way ; 
And all he did, whatever befell 

Was to croak the live long day." 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : 

I am aware that it lacks but a few minutes of Sunday, therefore, 
as soon as the noise made by the Sundaj'-School scholars leaving the 
hall permits, we will proceed with the next toast of the evening, 
"The Croaker." 

I have approached this topic with a great deal of doubt and mis- 
givings of mind, but, after hearing the distinguished speaker who pre- 
ceded me speak on the subject of "Internal Commerce," much after the 
style of Petroleum V. Nasby's lecture on " Milk," which even a cow 
could not recognize, (laughter) I have come to the conclusion that all you 
have to do is to go ahead as you please, and never allude to your subject. 

I have studied a good deal over the waj's of the " Croaker." It is 
the toughest thing I ever tackled. I have talked about a great many 
things, but how or why a man should talk about the " Croaker" at a 
congratulatory banquet, is a conundriun to me. 

In time of distress you call on your friends, so I called first on the 
Mayor, the chairman of the committee, who addressed me as ''Colonel," 
in capital letters, and then asked me to respond to this toast. I said : 
" Mr. Mayor, what are your ideas about croakers; you are trying to 
run this town and consequently see lots of them ; therefore, what is a 
croaker?" He .said: "Look in the dictionary." We were standing 
in front of the Gibson House, and I said : " I have been to the diction- 
ary, that is the slang dictionary, and it says: 'To croak is to die with 
a gurgling, rattling sound in your throat," " (laughter), and, although 



ss- 



standing in the presence of a Colonel, the Mayor suggested nothing 

which would make either a gurgle or a rattle, although I was ready to 

furnish the throat. (Renewed laughter). The Mayor said that the 

gentlemen responsible for this thing was General Hickenlooper ; that 

he, the General, was rather stuck on getting up toasts to which he 

could not respond himself, and that he fired them at his unsuspecting 

friends. So I went down to .see the General, and he said : " That is 

one of the greatest toasts you ever heard of." I said : " Well, what is 

your idea about a croaker ?' ' And he said : " It is enough for my great 

intellect to get up the toast, and not to furnish the speech." (More 

laughter) . 

' ' An old frog lived in a dismal swamp. 
In a dismal kind of a way ; 
And all he did, whatever befell. 
Was to croak the live-long day." 

Who would have supposed that the President of the Gas Company 
would ever waste the gray matter of his brain on a toast like that ? Can 
anybody imagine that a man, who is at the head of a corporation which 
pays twelve per cent, dividends is a croaker, and croaks all the time? 
We can readily imagine that if it w'as a ' ' dismal szvanip ' ' that it was the 
wrecking of some opposition company. I .said, "General, if you are 
responsible for this, give me an idea ;" and, says he, " I will tell you a 
croaker story : A fellow met a friend who was a chronic kicker, and he 
.said to him, ' I had a dream about you last night.' 'Well, what did 
you dream?' 'I dreamt that I was in Heaven,' and the other said, 
'Well, that was pretty good for you, what el.se?' 'Yes,' said the 
fellow% ' and the most singular thing was that you were in Heaven too.' 
' Do tell,' .says the other fellow^ ' and what was I doing?' ' Oh, doing 
ju.st like you were ahvays doing here on earth — grumbling. There you 
were, sitting by the throne, and I distinctly heard you say, ' Why in 
the devil don't they make these halos so they will fit?' " (Laughter). 
Now, that was the General's idea of a croaker. Then I thought I 
would go to our nnitual friend, the Honorable Jimmy Glenn, but the 
Honorable James said that since his hard job of enlightening the dear 
public about the Price Hill tanks, his own ' ' think-tank ' ' was out of 
order ; that he had not had an idea since then, and he declined " wid 



'^ 



tanks. ■ ' Thinking that a croaker who was living in a dismal swamp 
would like to get out, either by an aqueduct or a viaduct, I thought I 
would go and see a man who is an authority in the viaduct business, and 
so I hunted him up. I understood that he was something of a croaker, 
and, to be perfectly " Frank," I had to "Alter " all that. Then I was 
directed down on Third street, to another good " Citizen," for authority 
on Water Works, and there I found that the Circuit Court had 
"Ampt"-u-tated that authority. Dr. Graydon, who is always solicitous 
about budding orators, offered to loan me a poem on " Pessimism," but 
I declined solely in your interest, gentlemen, because I have always 
held the Doctor as an authority on poetry, especially since his two 
o'clock a. m. effort at the " Burns Club," where he asserted that the 
' ' Immortal Bobby ' ' was the authority of the lines, 

''A mon 's a mon, for a' that and a' that, 
Be he a Republican or a Democrat." 

I have come to the conclusion that there are no croakers here in 
Cincinnati. I am certainly not one, and, if I was, I could never croak 
on an occasion like this. I doubt if we can find a man or woman. 
Democrat or Republican, black or white, who has any croak coming at 
all because J. B. Foraker has been elected Senator. Why in the mis- 
chief they should put down a toast like this on an occasion like this, is 
more than I can understand. I have come to the conclusion that the 
only thing to do is to follow M. E. Ingall's " vestibuled-throughout, 
Chesapeake and Ohio " style, and get off the track, run on a switch and 
abandon the subject entirely. (Long and continuous cheers, applause 
and laughter). I conclude that the best thing to do is to talk about 
the Day, George Wa.shington's, and I propose to organize a new 
society — Americans are great on societies — and I shall call it "The 
Sons of Evolution." I have already decorated the Governor of Ohio 
and the Mayor, and the Senator-elect wears the badge of the .society. 
Eook upon the.se hatchets, these cherries, and these twigs, and with 
bowed heads think of what they mean. This is onr day ; we are the 
lineal descendants of the truth tellers of George Washington's time. 
The reason we are called ' Sons of Evolution " is because history says 



m 



that George Washington could not tell a lie — when he was a boy — 
but after he had grown up, had gone into politics, and got an office — 
well, history is silent, and wiselj' so. (Laughter and applause). I 
wanted the Governor especialh' to wear this badge, because during his 
term of office he will not have to tell a lie — that is if he will relj' on 
his four generals and his eighteen colonels. I am sure that even if 
you cannot all be ' ' Sons of Evolution ' ' you will join us in an Ode 
to the natal day of our mutual friend. 

TO WASHINGTON. 

" Washington, yours was a noble deed. 

Your cherry tree and ax have sown the seed 

Of rectitude within the youthful mind, 

Which might have been to other thoughts inclined. 

But George, dear boy, for each one you 've inspired, 

Pray, don't forget, you 've made the balance of us tired." 

MORAL. 

The moral is, that \-ou need never tell a lie when the old man has 
cherry trees to burn. (Cheers and applause). 

As none of you are leaving the room, as I had expected, permit me 
to again allude to "Croakers." Going back to the dictionary about 
the "Croakers," I learned in mj' wanderings around Old Point Com- 
fort, (and this is no advertisement of the Chesapeake and Ohio Road) , 
that the " Croaker" is a fish, which is freqtiently caught down there, 
which Colonel Bill\- Walker .says ' ' tastes something between a sea- 
horse and a boiled rubber over-shoe," and which, by authority of Mr. 
Ingalls, is served upon the Pullman dining-cars on that road, but, as I 
said, to rettirn, not to our fish, but our croaker. In any and all the 
relations of life, the croaker has a prominent place — more's the pity. 
Your average croaker is mereh- a pessimist gone to seed. Graduating 
as a pessimist, he fills his pockets with bombs and becomes an Anarchist. 
When he becomes bilious and feels mean, he is satisfied that he is either 
too good or pious for the balance of us ; or else he feels patriotism, of 
the croaker stamp ; is concerned about the good of his party, and wants 
an office, so that he can reform it. 

He feels like he is a new man in opposition to the new woman, and. 



/ 



•^f 



" While his wife takes in sewing, to keep things agoing, the croaker 
superintends the earth." He is like a mustard plaster, in that lit- has 
no curative properties, but is simply a counter-irritant, and also, like a 
mustard plaster, he is usually raising hell behind your back. (Laughtei 
and applause). 

In a battle — I do not speak now in my military capacity, but 
rather of business or political battles — while others carry arms, the 
croaker shoulders a telescope that he may foresee disaster, looks wise 
and prophesies defeat, and lets out section after section, that he may 
magnify awful disaster out of the minor weaknesses of his brethren. 
He, too, would be a soldier, were it not for the fact that his grandfather 
met with an accident, and he has inherited the symptoms. (Laughter). 

As a politician he understands the villainies of all other parties, 
and is utterly ignorant of the good things of his own. He is as badly off 
in his definitions of things as the little girl in the Parish Church, who 
had carefully been drilled to answer correctly the one cpiestion in the 
Catechism which the teacher supposed would be propounded to her, 
but, unfortunately, the little girl ahead of her was absent, and so, in- 
stead of being asked by the Priest, " What is Purgatory?" she caught 
the question "What is Matrimony?" and she responded, "That state 
of torment in which souls are punished for their sins." "Tut, tut," 
said the father, "that is the answer to Purgatory." But the Bishop, 
who was doubtless more experienced, said, " Howld on. let the child 
alone, for all you and I know, she is telling the truth." (Laughter 
and applause). 

But, brethren, it is your business croaker who is the typical cuss 
alluded to in the sentiment accompanying this toast, who .sits in the 
swamp all the day long and does nothing but croak. He pervades com- 
mercial and financial centers and with his depressing outlook, flaps the 
owl wings of gloom in the face of a ri.sing sun of Prosperit>-. and 
declares that financial disaster is the unquestioned interpretation of 
Daniel's dream, and that the weird beast with seven heads and ten 
horns is to trample the credit of business circles in the dust. Your 
croaker is a hybrid .sort of an animal, like a bat, half mouse and half 
bird ; he is not a first-class flyer, and as a sprinter he is a dismal failure. 



^1 



And yet this good old government can borrow a hundred million of 
dollars any day from we bloated aristocrats, and we still have money 
for banquets. 

The croaker is always ready to add to disaster, whether justified or 
not. He is as bad as the man whose wife sent him down to the cellar 
for a pitcher of milk. He stumbled unfortunately on the top step, and 
he went down into the cellar, with such casual interruption to his career 
as each step afforded as he struck them in succession. As he lit on the 
stone pavement of the bottom, he was comforted by his wife asking him, 
with that tender solicitude which wives can assume on like occasions : 
"John, did you break the pitcher?" and John said, " Naw, I didn't, 
but d d if I don't ;" and he did. (Laughter and applause). 

Whatever hindrances there are in our municipal affairs, our busi- 
ness advance and our commercial interests as a city, they have been and 
are largely due to the croakers who lay down when the columns of 
united interests are ordered to ad\-ance. Let us hope that all the sore 
spots which the croaker exhibits will be made by the heels of enterprise, 
which trample him into the dust on their onward march to success. 
(Applause) . The average croaker is an ambulance with a loud gong, 
going about the streets but belonging to no hospital. But let us dismiss 
the croaker, and bury him under the ruins of any business which he 
murders. On his toml)stone let an inverted hand be carved, its fingers 
pointing downward, and over it the legend : " Buried with the burial of 
an ass ;" and under it his last words : " I told you so." 

My brethren, fluctuations in demand may in time deceive even an 
optimist as to the possible supply. Over production nnist necessarily 
depreciate values, adverse conditions and very strained relations may 
sometimes be very hard to bring into close fellowship, >et, while the 
day may be protracted between seed time and harvest, between invest- 
ment and return, the return comes when energy is wedded to an unfal- 
tering determination to win, and Mahomet will start for the mountain, 
when he has ascertained that the mountain has no intention of moving 
toward him. 

Now a few words in conclusion. I don't know whether the Senator- 
elect would like to have any advice about his cour.se in the Senate from 



/c 



the croakers present, but we are ready to give it to him if he wants it. 
We would Hke to suggest, when he goes to Washington, that he 
arrange to have a government under which we can have an American 
chance to earn a living, and the right to keep it w^hen we earn it. 
We would get it honestly, of course. We would also like his help to 
make this country the best place on earth to live in, to work in, and to 
die in ; and the other little places, which we have not annexed, like 
Venezuela and Cuba, can wait a short time, until we have straightened 
these things out. 

As to our brother Foraker, he has heard a few only of the good 
things of himself in which we all concur. We do not begrudge him 
these because we all love him, and, like my distinguished friend. Sir 
Henry Irving, as quoted to me by his friend. Dr. Graydon : 

" Oive me my sword, ' Excalibur," 
Why listen to thi.s ' Cro-aker,' 
Are we not all tried, trusty friends, 

A toast to him. our ' For-aker.' " (Laughter). 

Brother Foraker has been sentenced by the people to a term of six 
years in the Senate, for his repeatedly expressed contempt of the High 
Court of the Democracy. He says he doesn't know just what he will 
do there or how he will do it. It strikes the average Republican that if 
any one crosses swords with the Senator-elect, it will be a ca.se of what 
the other fellow will do. We commend such to a study of the dought>- 
warrior in " Twelfth Night," for he will doubtless have occasion to say. 
" Plague on 't, and I thought he had been valiant and so cunning in 
fence, I 'd have seen him hanged ere I 'd have challenged him." 

If Brother Foraker has any trouble about the distribution of the 
oflfices, either local or otherwise, we can assure him he need not worry 
about that. If he will select any three or four of the gentlemen present 
to-!iight, we will gladly attend to all such matters for him, and thus 
save him a great deal of trouble and corresjx)ndence. 

But let us call a truce to all this pleasantry and jest. We are to 
end this delightful opportunity of laying our garlands of love and 
respect at the feet of our neighbor, our friend, our brother — brother in 



/ Vtf « 



the great fellowship of the universal brotherhood of man ; banded to 
make each other happier and the world better by our living in it. We 
have given our honored guest our sincere congratulations. We send to 
that noble woman who has been, and is, the inspiration of his public 
and private life, our heart echoed wishes that all happiness, health and 
prosperity may be the measure given the home circle for many, many 
years. 

In this, the closing hour of night, our closing words to brother 
Foraker are, that either here, or in Washington, or wherever he is ; 

" Our hearts, our hopes are all with thee, 
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, 
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears. 
Are all with thee, are all with thee." 

(Cheers and applause) . 



/d>- 



Ci$t of 6ue$t$. 



/6>3 



Aj-res, James M. 
Ainpt, Will. M. 
Alter, Franklin. 
Allison, Robert. 
Altenberg, Geo. P. 
Archibald, R. M. 
Alms, Fred. H. 
Ackerland, Max. 
Alms, Wm. H. 
Addy, Matthew. 
Archibald, R.J. H. 
Butterfield, A. P. 
Brown, Dan'l W. 
Bradford, E. F. 
Bullock, George. 
Bettinger, Albert. 
Bernard, Lewis G. 
Breen, John. 
Braemer, Theo. 
Buckland, Geo. 
Burch, Wallace. 
Bushnell, A. S. 
Burton, Stephen R. 
Bode, A. H. 
Buchwalter, M. L. 
Burgheim, Max. 
Bailey, Sam'l, Jr. 



Bauer, Morris 
Bosworth, C. A. 
Brown, Chas. Edgar. 
Bundy, Wm. E. 
Bromwell, J. H. 
Bradley, F. A. 
Brannan, J. D. 
Ballman, F. H. 
Bettman, Morris L. 
Brown, Adolpli L. 
Biddle, W. P. 
Bettman, B. 
Black, L. C. 
Brewster, J. W. 
Bader, Fred. 
Bohrer, Geo. H. 
Carl, Alvin. 
Colter, Archibald. 
Cox, Benj. H. 
Carroll, R. 
Campbell, B. W. 
Cox, Geo. B. 
Cox, Joseph. 
Carew, Jos. T. 
Corre. A. (i. 
Colston, Edward. 
Crane, Clinton. 



^ 



Cox, Joseph, Jr. 
Conroy, A. J. 
Caldwell, John A. 
dishing. Wade. 
CI ore, J. C. 
Comstock, F. D. 
Crawford, L. J. 
Commercial Gazette. 
Critchell, B. P. 
Davis, David. 
Davis, Nat. Henchman. 
Dana, S. F. 
DuBrul, Nap'n. 
Davidson, A. 
Davis, Charles. 
Dunbar, H. B. 
Diem, F. J. 
Dodds, Milo G. 
Ermston, Jas. D. 
Espy, James. 
E/.ekiel, H. C. 
Ellison, Jas. D. 
Emerson, Eowe, 
Egan, Thos. P. 
Ernst, Rich'd P. 
Ehrman, Benj. F. 
Ellis, Frank. 
Ebersole, Geo. K. 
Evans, Chas. 
Ernst, John P. 



Enquirer, The Cin'ti. 
Freie Presse, The. 
Foraker, J. B. 
Freiberg, Maurice J. 
Fisher, Wm. Hubbell. 
Freiberg, J. W. 
Felton, Sam'l M. 
French, Tilden R. 
Furst, Abe. 
Ferris, Howard. 
Fechheimer, J. S. 
Fleischmann, Chas. 
Fleischmann, Julius. 
Fechheimer, Henry S. 
Foraker, Jos. B., Jr. 
Fisher, George. 
Fitzgerald, J. W. 
Fre}-, John. 
Foraker, Jas. R. 
Ford, Collin. 
Ford, Wm. 
Fries, Gus. R. 
Fagin, Morgan H. 
Fisk, Chas. H. 
Garrard, Jeptha, 
Griffith, G. P. 
Guthrie, J. V. 
Gano, Gazzam. 
Goodman, Wm. A. 
Goetz, John, Jr. 



C; ray don. Dr. T. W. 
C.ansel, Clias. O. 
Gregp:,.E. B. 
Crant. W. C. 
(ioldsmith, A. W. 
Galvin, John. 
Granger, W. W. 
Gray, Adam. 
Green wald, C. H. 
Gordon, W. J. M. 
Good ale. Levi C. 
Hoefinghoff, Chas. 
Hooker, Jas. J. 
Hunt, W. L. 
Hoyt, Jas. H., 
Hall, E. C. 
Hicks. James. 
Harper, J. C. 
Heuer, W. H. 
Hunt, Chas. J. 
Hadden. C. B. 

* 

Herrmann, Aug. 
Hickenlooper, A. 
Hinkle. A. Howard. 
Hofflieimer, Harrj- M. 
Hafer, George. 
Holloway, C. M. 
Herlinger, A. L. 
Harrison, W. H. 
Hendley. Frank W. 



Hutton, J. M. 
Hollister, Howard C. 
Henshaw, (ieorge. 
Huschart. Frank M. 
Holmes. C. R. 
Hutton, Wm. E. 
Heekin, James. 
Hunt, Samuel F. 
Heath, Perry S. 
Hertenstein, Fred. 
Heath, Thos. F. 
Harrison, Jos. T. 
Ingalls, M. E. 
Immenhart, Henry. 
Isaacson, W. J. 
Irwin. Wm. T. 
Jones, Rankin D. 
Jelke, Fred'k. Jr. 
Johnson, J. W, 
Jackson, W. H. 
Knopf. Sam'l. 
Kramer, Adam A. 
Kuhn. Louis. 
Kineon, Sol. P. 
Kittredge, E. W. 
Kenan, N. G. 
Kellogg, Chas. H. 
Keck, Lee R. 
Kirchner. Frank. 
Kilgour, John. 



Kingsbury, C. G. 

Kelley, Thos. H. 

Kahn, Chas., Jr. 

Kroger, B. H. 

Kirch ner. F. H. 

Kurtz, Chas. L. 

Krohn, M. 

Kuhn, Oscar W. 

Knanl, M. 

Kumler, Judge Phil. H. 

Kinsley, J. R. 

Langdon, Perin. 

Lewis, Eugene L. 

Lippencott, W. J. 

Laws, Harry L. 
Lawson, F. H. 
Lowenstein, Gus., Sr. 
Lot/.e, C. IM. 
Luebbing, G. G. 
Laidley, F. A. 
Levj', James. 
Logan, Thos. A. 
Mayer, L. 
Maxwell, S. N. 
McCrea, C. T. 
Mack, Thos. A. 
Morrison & Co. , James. 
Melish, W. B. 
McNeill, Aaron. 
Mosby, John R. 



Mullane, A. J. 
Monfort, E. R. 
Morgan, R. J. 
Markbreit, Leopold. 
Mulvihill, T. J. 
Mclntyre, Marion. 
Macke}', John. 
Mack, M. J. 
Miller, I. J. 
Mullen, Mike. 
Murphy, John P. 
Minor, Thos. C. 
Martin, D. B. 
McCally, E. L , 
McCormick, E. O. 
Marfield, Elliott. 
McDowell, Jos. J. 
Nippert, C. L. 
Oskamp, Henr}-. 
Outcalt, Miller. 
Prendergast, J. W. 
Pfiester, Fred. 
Peaslee, John B. 
Pluemer, Adolph. 
Prior, C. E. 
Pugh, A. H. 
Peters, Ralph. 
Peabody, W. \V. 
Pistor, Wni. 
Peebles, Jos. S. 



/c 



Pullen, R. T. 
Peck, Hiram D. 
Paxton, Thos. B. 
Pattison, John M. 
Pedretti, R. M. 
Post, The Cin'ti. 
Ryan, Michael. 
Ravolgi, A. 
Rheinstrom, Sig. 
Rettig, John. 
Roth, E. N. 
Roe, G. M. 
Rosenbaum, Harry. 
Rulison, H. M. 
Rowe, Casper. 
Robertson, CD. 
Rowe, W. S. 
Ricketts, Merrill. 
Robinson, J. M. 
Rendigs, Wm. 
Reamy, Dr. Thad. A. 
Shattuck, W. B. 
Shipherd, John J. 
Strauss, Isa. 
Swing, Jas. B. 
Smith, Jackson. 
Senior, Edw. 
Schwill, Albert. 
Swing, P. F. 
Stiunk, Wm. 



Santmeyer, C. A. 
Sterritt, Geo. T. 
Smith, Amor. Jr. 
Scarlett, J. A. 
Schmidlapp, J. G. 
Stanley, H. J. 
Smith, Rufus B. 
Smith, J. H. Chas. 
Stone, Geo. N. 
Sayler, John R. 
Seasongood, Lewis, 
Sullivan, John J., 
Smith, J. M. 
Spiegel, Fred. S. 
Stephens, Chas. H. 

Sullivan, J. J., 

Shears, D. C. 

Thrasher, A. B. 

Trost, Sam'l W. 

Taylor, J. Gordon. 

TuUidge, Frank G. 

Tucker, Alf. A. 

Trost, Jacob. 

Taft, Chas. P. 

Tharp, Willis P. 

Tribune, The Cin'ti. 

Times-Star. The. 

Traub, L. 

Voorheis, A. B. 

Vandergrift, Geo. A. 



Volksblatt, The. 
Volksfreund, The. 
Weir, Fred. C. 
Wright, D. Thew. 
Wiborg, F. B. 
Warrington, J. W. 
Woodmansee, D. D. 
Wilson. M. F. 
Washburn, John B. 
Webb, T. D. 
Wulsin, Drausin. 
Woods, Wm. 
Whetstone, John C. 



Winkler, Philip. 
West, Robt. H. 
Waddell, Robt. S. 
White, Alfred. 
Wilson, Robt. 
Wabnitz, Geo. 
Wilder, Stephen H. 
Walker, Wm. P. 
Yergason, H. C. 
Zumstein, John. 
Zumstein, Frank C. 
Ziegler, H. M. 



/c 



7 



FORAKER. 



/ 



A GREAT SPEECH 

BY 

Senator-Elect J. B. Foraker 

ON THE OCCASION OF THE 

Opening of the Ohio Republican Campaign at 
Columbus, August 15, 1896. 



Mr. Chairmax, Ladies and Gentlemen: — I am not behind Sen- 
ator Sherman in the matter of having a prepared speech. But it is 
not my fault that I have it in that form. The newspapers have a 
habit of requiring us, when we make opening speeches, as they call 
them, to write them out beforehand and send them to them, in 
order that they may be in type before they are delivered. I have 
complied with that requirement. It is not my fault, as I have 
said, that I did; but that is all they can require of me. I want you 
to know that I have made that kind of a speech, and now I am 
going to make such a speech as I feel like making.' (Applause.) 
I think it is a good speech, and I would like to have you read it. 
But if you do not, it will never be read. 

Now the first thing I want to say to you is, that the thought that 
has been uppermost in my mind as I have been sitting here this 
afternoon looking out on this audience and listening to the magnifi- 
cent address that has just been delivered (cheering), the thought, I 
say, that has been in my mind is, why is it that we have to have 
any meetings at all this year? Why is it that Senator Sherman 
must come here, and with the thermometer ranging in the nineties, 
jeopardize his grand life to discuss propositions in antagonism to 
Democracy? I do not know why it is, unless it is that the Dem- 
ocratic party never knows when it is dead. 

When we got through with the campaign last year, on election 
night, as I sat by the side of the operator in Cincinnati and heard 
him read off a message to the efi'ect that Ohio had elected Bushnell 
governor by more than 90,000, I said: "Thank God; not only that 
Bushnell has been elected, but that it won't be necessary to have 
any more meetings for at least twenty-five years. (Laughter and 
ajiplause.) Notwithstanding, here we are. And a little bit earlier 
this year than usual. We generally wait until the middle of Sep- 
tember before Ave commence our campaign, but here now it is only 
the middle of dog-days (laughter), the loth day of August, and 
we are having an opening of a campaign, and have assembled here 
one of the grandest meetings of the citizens of this commonwealth 
ever assembled in the state of Ohio. 



Why is it? "Why it is because, as Senator Sherman has been 
telling us, Ave have a new question this year. The Democracy have 
made a new issue. Wliy is it they made a new issue? Did not the 
Democracy know everything there was to know from the beginning? 
(Laughter.) I will tell you why it is we have a new issue. They 
have run completely . out of the old. They were whipped to a 
standstill before they started on the tarifi', and they were defeated 
before they started in on the tariff, because, unlike 1892, we 
now, all of us, understand the tariff question. You cannot find 
a laboring man anvwhere in the United States Avho does not 
now understand it without an argument having to be made to 
him, that if you make a product across the water in some 
other country you do not have to make it in this country. (Cheer- 
ing.) That if you make it over there there is an increased demand 
for labor — over there (laughter) — and that much less demand for 
labor — over here. (Renewed laughter.) That is what the laboring 
man has learned. 

The farmer has learned something, too. Times have been pretty 
hard on him. He is selling his products at the cheapest price ever 
known since before the war. He has found out that to have good 
demand and to get good prices for his product he must have a good 
home market. (Cheering.) He must have those products which 
the American people want to make use of — made not by English- 
men or Germans or Frenchmen, who will constitute home markets 
for the farmers in those countries, but made by the honest sons of 
toil of our own country, who constitute a home market for his 
products. (Applause.) 

And the banker has found out something. I remember when I 
lived here in Columbus for a short time I thought Brother Hunt- 
ington, who sits on the platform, knew everything about banking, 
but he knows more now, I venture, than he did then. He knew 
much then in a general way; now he knows it in a practical form. 
A man in the banking business gets along better and makes more 
when all the laboring men are employed and when the farmers are 
having some place to sell' their products. 

And the dry goods man, and every other kind of a business man 
in America has found out the difference between protection and 
free trade. (Applause.) 

And then there is Uncle Sam himself. He has found out some- 
thing. (Laughter and applause.) In the 27 years the Republican 
l)arty controlled this country, after the close of the war down to 
1S92, we paid off and cancelled forever more than one thousand 
seven hundred millions of the ])ublic debt. During the three years 
and a fraction of Democratic free trade rule, they have paid off 
notliing, but have increased the public debt by more than 
$262,000,000. Uncle Sam is just now calculating how long, 
at that rate, it will take him to get out of debt. (Laughter 
and applause, and cries of "Hit him again.") He has made 
uj» his mind, like some other people did in 1S92, that he 



wants a change ; and he will have a change just as soon as the 
law and the constitution will allow it. (Applause.) And it 
was because the IJemocratic ]tarty foresaw that this was to 
come to pass in November that they thought they liad bet- 
ter try and have a new issue this year. They did not want 
to go to battle again on the tariff, and the result is we have 
this money question. I have told you why we have it. Let me 
now tell you some of the objections I have to it, before I commence 
to tell you of the nature of it. 

I object to it in the first place because the Democratic party pro- 
poses it. (Great laughter, applause and cries of "That is sufh- 
cient." "That is enough.") Now that is not a bigoted idea. That 
is founded on reason. (More applause and cheering.) I will tell 
you why. It is enough to settle it with me that the Democratic 
party proposes it, for I have been pretty well acquainted as an out- 
side looker on, with that party for the last forty years, and in all 
that time, it has never failed to be on the wrong side of every great 
national question. 

You know how it was in war times ; how it was in the recon- 
struction period. You will remember how they caressed the rag 
baby. (Laughter and applause.) You will remember how it was 
about specie redemption. Why, Mr. Sherman talks here as though 
disposed to take exception to their criticism of him in connection 
with the act of 1873. Have you forgotten, senator ; has any man 
forgotten how the Democrats of this country assailed him and 
abused him and maligned him because of his grand work in con- 
nection with resumption in 1879? (Long continued applause.) 

And not to be tedious about it, they Avere not only wrong about 
all the questions to which I have just adverted, but they were 
wrong, as I was trying to indicate awhile ago, about their ])roposi- 
tion of free trade on which they carried the country in 1892, and 
so it is, I say, they have not advanced an idea, the\' have not put 
forward a proposition in the last forty years with respect to the ad- 
ministration of our national afliairs that has met with acceptance 
and today enjoys the approval of the people of the United States. 
(More cheering.) 

Now, Avhen a party has had forty years of unsuccessful trial, I, 
somehow or other, lose confidence in them (cheering and laughter), 
especially when they come to me with a new proposition, admit- 
ting in the presentation of it that they have lailed beyond 
expectation with respect to the last one that they advanced. 

And so I say I am opposed to this in tlie first place, because the 
Democratic party has jiut it forth. But I have other objection to 
it. The Democrati^ newspapers do not seem to like it. One-half 
the Democratic party itself does not ajiprove this new ]>ropo- 
sition. Now, when the Democratic party brings forward something 
so bad that one-half of its own i>arty cannot stomach it, I do not 
want them to ask me to take it down. (Great laughter and cheer- 
ing-) 



Here is what thej' have to say about it. I want to read just 
two or three extracts from leading Democratic newspapers to show 
you how they criticise this new issue. The New York World, is I 
suppose, the greatest Democratic newspaper in the country. I un- 
derstand that it admits that it is. (Great laughter.) 

Here is what the New York World says about this new proposi- 
tion : "The platform was dictated by lunacy." (Cheering and 
cries of "Good enough, that is right.") 

The New York Post says: "In point of morals, it is baser than 
anything every avowed heretofore by any political party in this 
country, outside of the slavery question." (More applause.) 

The Philadelphia Times says: "The platform should be shunned 
by patriotic voters as they would shun pestilence." (Renewed 
cheering.) 

And yet they talk about getting Republicans to vote that way. 
Well, they cannot get me. (Continued ajjplause and cries of "Me 
either!") 

The Philadelphia Record denounces it "As a declaration for re- 
pudiation, anarchy and dishonor." 

I will not stop to read any thing more. But let me add that 
those are but fair samples of what has been said by all — or most 
all of the great and leading Democratic newspapers of the North- 
ern states; more than 100 of them, spreading all over the country 
from the Atlantic to the Pacific seaboard, have denounced it in 
that manner. And all their greatest and most trusted, and at least 
by us, the most respected leaders, have denounced it in similar 
language. When I lived here my friend, Joseph H. Outhwaite, 
was thought to be a pretty good Democrat and a very respectable 
man. Have you heard of him pledging his su}^port to Bryan, free 
silver and this newly-converted apostle of the new idea. Brother 
Lentz? (Prolonged applause.) There is another objection. Did you 
ever stop to study the personel of the convention that nominated 
Mr. Bryan ? (A voice — "Which convention ?'") 

I do not know how many conventions he has been nominated 
by. First he was nominated by tlie Democratic convention at 
Chicago. Then he Avas nominated by the Populistic convention at 
St. Louis. Then he was nominated by the silver convention at St. 
Louis ; and then he Avas nominated by the National convention, or 
indorsed, or something of that sort. But, however it may be, Mr. 
Bryan was nominated l)y Jjoth the Democratic and Populistic con- 
ventions, and they will represent the great mass of the few people 
who support him at the polls. (Great cheering and laughter.) 

Who were tlie })rominent actors in those conventions ? Who 
were the men there representing constituencies and claiming to 
have a new light about finances? Who were the profound con- 
stitutional lawyers and tlie wise financiers of these bodies? I want 
to road you a few of their names that I thought of today as I came 
up here. And I want to tell you that a i)roposition, without mean- 
ing to disparage those people at all, that comes from them, to af- 
fect me, is not going to meet my approval, nor with yours, I think, 



until we hear what other people think about it anyhow. (Cheer- 
ing.) Well, there was Governor Altgeld (great laughter and cries 
of "Hang him.") and "Pitchfork" Tillman (renewed laughter.) 
And along with them as the next chief actor on that side of the 
convention was this man, who, when last heard from, was threaten- 
ing "to blow the livers and lights" out of the Federal troops if 
Cleveland should send them into Texas as he had sent them into 
'Chicago to suppress the riots there. I refer to Governor Hogg. 
(Continued applause and laughter.) Altgeld, Tillman and Hoggl 
'(Renewed applause and laughter.) 

And then when the Populists assembled the chief instrumental- 
ities for good there were "Cyclone" Davis from Sulphur Spring, 
Tex. (Long continued laughter.) He made at least three speeches 
^t every session of the convention, and he was ably seconded by 
"Stump" Ashley and "Buffalo" Jones, and "Commonweal" Coxey, 
the last but not least, Mary Ellen Lease. (Long continued ap- 
plause and laughter.) There you have it. Senator Hill of New 
York, Governor Russell of Massachusetts, and men of that char- 
acter, men of that ability, men of that record, men of their belief, 
tried in that convention to keep it from making the fatal mistake 
it did make, but all in vain. The votes, if not the brains of those 
conventions, belonged to the Cyclone Davises and the Buffalo 
Joneses and the Mary Ellen Leases. (Prolonged cheering and 
merriment.) 

Now, my fellow-citizens, I would rather take the judgment of 
John Sherman on a financial proposition than the judgment of 
Mary Ellen Lease. (Great applau.'^e and laughter.) I would rather, 
on a profound constitutional or financial question, follow the lead- 
ership of Benjamin Harrison than "Pitchfork" Tillman. (Con- 
tinued laughter and ap})lause.) I would rather trust Governor 
Bushnoll than Governor Hogg (cheering), no matter how fat he may 
be. (Continued cheering.) And I would rather follow the leader- 
ership of the gallant Governor McKinley (long continued cheering), 
Avith all these great representatives of sound money, sound protec- 
tion, sound patriotism and sound everything else supporting him, 
than "the buy orator of the Platte" with such people controlling 
him. (More cheering and applause.) 

Now, my fellow-citizens, don't you think, just on the face of the 
case, that the issue ought to be decided in our favor? (Continued 
applause.) Well, I think so. 

And yet I am going to talk with you about this issue a little bit; 
not very long. It is jiretty warm here this afternoon. (Voices of 
"Go on.") Well, I will. You are not done with me yet. I am 
going to talk with you about that issue for a little while, notwith- 
standing what has been so well said by Senator Sherman. I want 
to talk to you al)out it in the first place to the end that we may 
understand just tvhat that issue is; and I am a little bit particular 
about that because I read a day or two ago — and it took me a day 
or two to do it — the speech made by "the boy orator of the Platte" 
when he was notified in New York. It occupied eight columns in 



S" 



8 

the Cincinnati Enquirer, close print. I read every word of it, and 
when I got done with it I thought I knew why he was called "the 
boy orator of the Platte." Geography tells us that the Platte is a 
very peculiar river. They say it is a thousand miles long and only 
six inches deep. (Long continued laughter and cheering.) 

As I closed the reading of it I had another thought about him. 
I thought "Mr. Bryan made himself by one speech, and now 
he has unmade himself by one speech." (Applause.) No man 
will ever be made president of the United States upon that speech. 
(Renewed applause.) 

What is the nature of this case? There is a great effort being 
made to create the impression that the Republican party has changed 
its position in regard to this matter. That is not true. The Repub- 
lican party has not changed. (Cheering.) It is more explicit in 
its declarations this year than ever before, because the circum- 
stances were such as to require a more explicit declaration; but the 
Republican party has delared this year for exactly the same things 
it declared for in 1892. I know; I was there; I helped to make both 
platforms. (Applause.) Senator Teller was there, too, both times. 
He came, in 1892, before the committee on resolutions, demanding 
that we insert in our platform a declaration for free silver. We 
said "No." We said, "We believe in bimetalism, in the sense that 
both gold and silver shall be used as standard money, and in favor 
of an international monetary conference to bring that about, but 
the Republican party does not believe in single silver standard 
monometalism, and we are, therefore, against your free silver prop- 
osition. (Applause.) We refused to give him his declaration. He 
did not expect to get it when he asked for it, and he was not sur- 
prised when we refused it. I know he was not, because he told me 
he was not. 

Four years passed. I was again on that committee. So was he. 
We assembled to prepare a plank upon the financial, as upon every 
other question. He came before us with another demand iV;r free 
silver. AVe answered him in 1896 as we had answered him in 
1892, but Senator Teller said, "Unless you give me what I ask, free 
silverj I will bolt this convention and the Republican party." We 
said to Senator Teller that we appreciated his high character; we 
appreciated his good standing in years gone by as a Reijublican; we 
admired his ability; we loved him as we loved all who had served 
the cause of Republicanism in the days gone by, and were therefore 
sorry to see him go; but when it came to the question of having a 
sound currency for the American people to do business with, or 
having the Republican party get along without the services of the 
distinguished senator from Colorado, we could only say, "Goodby, 
Senator Teller." (Applause.) 

Our declaration in 1892 and our declaration in 1896 are both 
declarations in favor, as I said a minute ago, of bimetalism, when 
you can have it, and we think Ave can have it by an international 
agreement, but declarations in favor of maintaining, until then, the 



existing gold standard, and not being allowed to be driven to a 
silver standard. 

Now, what is the policy that we have been having? That is the 
policy that we have been having for 23 years. Senator Sherman 
has been telling you how we have maintained gold and silver at a 
parity. Mr. Bryan seemed to think he ought to say something 
on that point; and he stated in that speech made in Madison 
Square garden, to which I have referred, that we have been able to 
maintain silver dollars coined in the ratio of 16 to 1, at par with 
gold because the silver dollars are a legal tender. That is not the 
reason at all. The reason silver dollars are maintained at par with 
gold is because silver dollars, and every other form of United States 
money, are redeemable in gold. (Applause.) I saw that they were 
selling Mexican dollars on the streets today, and I thought I would 
like to see tliem. I do not want to palm any of them off on any- 
body, but I sent down and got a couple of them and I have them 
here. There are two Mexican dollars (exhibiting same) ; I bought 
them for one United States silver dollar. There are six grains 
more of pure silver in each of these Mexican dollars than there are 
in this one United States silver dollar. These Mexican dollars 
down in Mexico are a legal tender. They are worth down in 
Mexico, where they are a legal tender, just what they are worth up 
here in the United States. You can buy in the City of Mexico 
with one of our silver dollars two Mexican dollars — or practically 
that, a few cents difference. Why is it? Is it because the Mexican 
dollars are legal tender? No; it is because the Mexican dollar has 
no redeemer. (Great laughter and applause.) When you get the 
Mexican dollar you are at the end of your business, transaction. 
That is money. That is the highest money they have in circula- 
tion. But when 3'ou get the silver dollar of the United State?, you 
find it worth a dollar in gold, because if you want the gold all you 
have got to do is to ask for it. That is all you ever had to do under 
Republican rule. 

How is it, this dollar is made redeemable in gold? Not bv ex- 
press declaration. But by the declaration which Senator Sherman 
read to you and similar declarations. A declaration that pledges 
the government of the United States to maintain the parity of gold 
and silver dollars. How can you maintain that parity? Only by 
at all times being willing and able to pay out gold fur silver to any- 
body who wants it. 

Now, I have some other money here, (A voice, ''You are lucky.'") 
Yes, I am lucky. There is a one dollar bill (exhibiting same.) 
That is a certificate that somebody has deposited one silver dollar 
in the vaults of the United States treasury at Washington and he 
can have it back again whenever somebody brings that paper. That 
is not a legal-tender. I suppose, therefore, according tu ^Ir. Bryan, 
we ought to find this representing the intrinsic value of the silver. 
He says the silver dollar is as good as gold because it is a legal ten- 
der. Will somebody explain to me, who accepts his announce- 
ment, why this silver certificate, which is not a legal tender, should 



10 

be worth just as much as that silver dollar, or a gold dollar, or any 
other dollar that the mints of the United States ever put forth? 
There is only one answer to it, and a man does not have to live in 
the country of the Platte to understand what it is either. The an- 
swer is that it is the policy of the government of the United States 
and the congress of the United States to put forth its pledge to 
maintain that policy ; to keep every dollar of its money, whether 
silver or paper, at par with gold, and everybody knows you can 
have the gold for it. That is why it is. 

Now, has this been a good policy or not? I have other pieces of 
money here representing the same thing. We have, you know, six 
different kinds of paper money. I do not know whether you knew 
it or not, I did not know it until I counted them and I do not ex- 
pect you did. You did not know it because you have never taken 
the trouble to find out because you knew the general fact and were 
satisfied with it that no money, whether it was a national bank 
note, a greenback note, a silver certificate, a gold certificate or a 
treasury certificate, no matter whether it be made legal tender by 
law or not, it is the money you know, of the United States of 
America, and behind which this great and powerful government of 
ours stands, and you know that our government has given you its 
pledge that you can have the gold for it whenever you want it. 
And, therefore, when I pay you with a silver certificate you do not 
look at it ; or when I pay you with a gold certificate, you do not 
look at it. You do not know whether it is gold or silver you are 
getting. You do not stop to inquire whether it is a national bank 
note, but you take it. You are glad to get it. You Avill take it 
inside out, upside down or iu any way, just sa you get it. (Con- 
tinued cheering.) 

That is true because it has been our policy and we have stead- 
fastly and successfully pursued it, of maintaining all our money at 
par with gold. 

And now, what about the gold? It does not have to have any 
redeemer, does it? The government does not liave to say it will 
redeem the gold dollar. All the government does with respect to 
it is to say — this is a dollar, or ten dollars, or twenty dollars, or 
whatever the denomination may be. It simply certifies as it comes 
from the mint that it possesses the requisite amount of gold to be 
named as it names it, and the gold does all the rest. It will go 
anywhere in this country; anywhere all over the world, and it is 
Avorth just as much in one country as it is in another. And if you 
want to put it under a hammer and liammer off the eagle, and 
hammer off the inscriptions upon it and pound it up into a rolled 
ball of bullion, it would still be worth just as much anywhere in 
this country as it was with that certificate upon it, and Avorth just 
as much in China, Japan or Europe or any other country. Nobody 
has to guarantee it. 

Now, my fellow-citizens, has it or not been wise that we have 
pursued this policy? Haven't you been proud of the currency of 
the United States during all these past years? Hasn't it been the 



11 

pride of every patriotic American citizen that as our gold would 
travel around the globe, so too, would every dollar of our paper 
money, being redeemable in gold, travel everywhere and be every- 
where honored at its face? Every American has been proud of it. 
Every business man has profited by it. Every laboring man has de- 
rived benefit from it. We have had a stable currency. As Senator 
Sherman has pointed out, we have had an abundant currency. 
There has not been any trouble with it until during the last two 
or three years. Until Mr. Cleveland came into power the second 
time, you did not hear any complaint about our money, did you? 
You did not hear of any trouble with the gold reserve. All this 
trouble has arisen since then. Why? Simply because, as every 
intelligent man knows, they adopted a policy of free trade as con- 
tra-distinguished to a protective tariff policy, and the first result 
was the paralysis of business and the second result was deficient 
revenues to the government. When people see that a government 
takes in less money than it has to pay out, they begin to get 
distrustful of it. If they have anything that calls for gold, they 
begin to ])resent it and demand gold. So it is with an individual. 
If the richest farmer in Franklin county should suddenly enter 
upon an unfortunate kind of life, develop dissipated habits, spend 
more than he makes, his neighbors would soon find him out ; they 
they would soon begin to lose confidence in him. If any of them 
had his notes of hand, you would find them calling upon him to 
secure payment while he still had enough left to pay with. So it 
is with a government. When the creditors of this nation saw the 
Democratic party in power and saw the kind of a policy it entered 
upon and saw its results, they got uneasy ; they commenced 
demanding payment, and then you heard for the first time that 
there was a gold reserve, and, as the singer said awhile ago, it was 
" tuml)ling down," and soon bonds had to be issued. 

Now, my fellow-citizens, the best remedy for this whole trouble 
is to put the Republican party back in power ; preserve the policy 
of a protective tariff'; reinaugurate the policy of reciprocity, and 
give to the American pe()i)le an economic administration under 
which the government would have enoush revenue to live and 
everybody engaged in business in this country and every laborer in 
the country can find something to do. (Prolonged ap])lause.) 

I will not, in view of what has been said to you by Senator Sher- 
man, ])rcss upon your time to pursue the subject longer. Before I 
quit, however, let me say one wnnl to the fjirmers who may be here 
represented. As I said awhile ago, they have been having a hard 
time of it. I was brought up on a farm. I know something about 
that business. It has resulted in my keeping in pretty close touch 
Avith the farmers of this country; keeping {)retty familiar with their 
situation, and I know with what dreadful results the exi)eriences 
of tlie last three years have fallen upon them. Mr. Bryan and 
those who ask you to vote in his support are going about over the 
country to tell you that the trouble to the farmers is because silver 
has been demonetized. Letnne say to you, my agricultural friends, 



1i 



12 

that the trouble with the farmers is because their markets have been 
demonetized. (Great applause.) You did not have any trouble in 
1892 and before that, did you? (Renewed applause and cries of 
"Not a bit.") Everybody went to work. We had a home market 
that consumed 95 per cent, of all that we could raise. In an evil 
hour the American people were misled. They put the Democratic 
party into power pledged to a free trade policy. They were afraid 
after they got into power to give it to us in all its fullness, but they 
did give us in lieu of the McKinley tariff what is called the Wilson- 
Gorman tariff, and that is a monstrosity. I might talk about it in 
many respects, but let me tell you in a word what it has done for 
th^ farmers of this country. 

The Wilson-Gorman law not only gave us lower duties on all 
imports, agricultural as well as otherwise, but it also destroyed all 
of our reciprocity treaties, under which we were rapidly 
increasing our foreign trade when Mr. Cleveland came in. What 
is the result of it? Take last year and compare it with the year 
before and you will find that we sold abroad of agricultural products 
in round numbers $150,000,000 less than under the last year of the 
McKinlev law. And last vear, under the Wilson-Gorman 
bill, in round numbers there were imported into this coun- 
try to be sold here in competition with our farmers, agri- 
cultural products amounting in the aggregate to more than 
S6S, 000,000. In round numbers, as result of this experiment of a 
Democratic administration, the farmers have been made to feel the 
folly of free trade to the extent of 8250,000,000 in the markets for 
their products. (More applause.) That is not all. That is what 
it cost us abroad. Who can tell what it has cost us at home? 
Ninety-five per cent, of our markets were at home, but our own 
people are out of work largely, and our own people, who are at 
work, are commanding lower wages. There are less people to buy. 
The farmer feels it. A man cannot buy much oats or feel his oats 
much, who hasn't anything at all in his pockets. (Laughter and 
cneering.) And so it is that with our market curtailed in our for- 
eign trade to the extent of S250,000;000, and our markets at home 
curtailed to the extent of far more than that, and nobody can tell 
how much, the farmer is having a hard time. What does the farmer 
want? Does he want a cheap dollar? No; God knows that is not 
what the farmer wants. (Great applause.) The farmer wants a good 
market in which he can sell everything he raises for a good dollar; 
that is what he wants. (Renewed applause.) When the farmer 
gets a good market and gets a good demand and gets that which is 
equal to gold for what he has to sell, then the face of the farmer will 
be Avreathed with smiles once more. (Cheering.) 

How are you going to get it? Do you think you Avill ever get it 
under Bryan? Do you think the ''boy orator of the Platte" 
would every get down to such a plain business-like matter as tariff 
on wool and other things the farmer is interested in? (Cheering 
and laughter.) There is not much latitude for oratory and rhetoric 
there. (Renewed laughter.) 



/ 

13 

What you want to do, my foUow-citizens, -tt-ho arc engaged in 
agricultural pursuits is to remember that through all the years of 
the present generation you have never trusted Republican policies 
in vain. (Continued cheering.) No matter whether the questions 
pertained to the preservation of the Union and the constitution ; to 
human liberty ; to equality of right as to suffrage or whether they 
have related to our economic conditions, the Republican ])arty has 
ever been on the side of right, and the prosperity and glory you 
have enjoyed in consequence are greater and grander than any 
language can describe. (Great applause.) 

Now it is too hot to talk to you any longer. I tell you, my 
fellot\--citizens, this thing of entrusting our national affairs to a 
political party for four years is something that is very serious. 
(Applause and a voice, "We see it now.'') We did not see it before, 
did we? That is true. 

That reminds me that a few years ago when the Republican 
party had been in power for 25 years and when everything was 
running so smoothly you scarcely knew we had a government and 
there was so much prosperity that the people did not like to be 
bothered with voting, even 'once in four years, they commenced 
talking about changin'j; the constitution and electing the presidents 
of the United States for eight years. No one is proposing that now 
is there ? (Great laughter and cheering.) We now appreciate the 
the Avisdom of the fathers in limiting the executive term to four 
years. (Renewed laughter and applause.) It is a serious matter, 
as we have learned. It requires great ability to administer the af- 
fairs of a nation of 70,000,000. Do you think this Fopulistic end 
of the Democratic party is able to do it? (Great laughter and 
applause.) They failed to do it, the Democrats did, when they 
had the advantage of all the brains and ability and patriotism that 
have now deserted them to vote for McKinley. 

I take it, there is not a man here who would entrust that branch 
of the Democratic party with the administration of our affairs of 
government without atleast distrust ; audi think lam able to say, 
without successful contradiction, that there is not a man here, 
Democrat or Republican, who would have the slightest concern 
but that evervthing national would be administered patriotically 
and to our satisfaction if William McKinley should be called to 
the Whitehouse. (Long continued applause.) Then if you have 
distrusted about one and do not have distrust about the other, 
why make me suffer in the flesh by standing here any longer? 
(Laughter and applause.) 

Ex-Governor McKinley represents in his life, in his record, in 
his ambitions, all that is best and greatest and grandest in Ameri- 
can history for the last forty years. (Prolonged cheering.) A sol- 
dier, a congressman, a governor! What a great man he will be 
four years from now when he has been president of the United 
States a term! (Continued cheering.) 
I Ohio has a special dutv resting ui)on her with respect to him. 

^ We presented him to the Republicans of this nation. \N'e vouched 



14 

for him — though that was hardly necessary. He had been doing 
business in the presence of and for the American people, and Avith 
their approval for a quarter of a century. It Avas not necessary for 
anybody to stand behind him like gold stands behind silver. 
(Laughter and cheering.) He passed before that convention and 
he passes now, since the convention, at par all over this country 
and ever3'where — except in other countries. (]More applause and 
laughter.) He is not very popular over in England. They do not 
think much of him, I understand, in Germany or France; but as a 
distinguished Democrat once said of Grover Cleveland: " We love 
Governor McKinley for the enemies of that character which he has 
made." He is not appreciated abroad because his life has been 
devoted to the defense of American institutions, American labor^ 
and the upbuilding of American prosperity for all classes of Amer- 
ican people. He believes in developing our own resources; he 
believes in giving employment to our own labor; he believes the 
American farmer should have his own market; that if he has wheat 
or corn to sell he ought to be able to find somebody in the next 
town Avho is working at some kind of manufacturing or some other 
sort of pursuit, and who must depend upon the farmer for what he 
eats; somebody who is getting good wages. That is Governor Mc- 
Kinley's policy. It has been a grand one. AMIl Ave continue it? 
(Great apjilause and cries of "Yes.") 

Yes, Ave Avill. I do not believe there can be r.ny question. But 
in heaven's name, let there be no doubt about Avhat Ohio shall do. 
We gave Governor Bushnell last year 92,000 majority. That was 
an oflf year. (Laughter and applause.) Let us make it this year 
at least 200,000 and thereby shoAV not only our appreciation of 
America, American institutions, American integrity, American 
honor in our finances, our tariff, our reciprocity and every other 
system and agency of government. (Great applause.) 



/r> 



SPEECH OF- 



Hon* ). B. Foraker 

At the Bundy Banquet 

AT JACKSON, OHIO, MARCH 6, 1896, 
in response to the toast: 

"THE REPUBLICAN PARTY/' 



Mr. Toastmaster, Ladies and Gentlemen : I would be 
glad if I could spoak here to-niglit as I feel about Mr. 
Buudy. If I could speak of him in that way, I could say 
some thin2;s about him of eulosry which nobodv else here 
can say, for it has been my gi'eat good fortune for the last 
twenty-five years to sustain towai'ds him a relation that has 
brought me so near to him tliat I know better than any of 
you can possibly know liis big brain, broad mind, generous 
nature, noble impulses and loving and affectionate kind- 
ness. Kindness, not simply for his family and friends, but 
for all humanity ; for, as every man knows wlio knows him 
at all, if there ever lived a man with lieart i)ig enough to 
compass all the world, he is that man. (Ai)plause). But 
it is not in good taste for me to umlcrtake to say these 
things^about my father-in-law. I must leave that to others. 
I will say this, however, seconding in that re3[)ect wliat 
Gov. McKinley has so beautifully said, that I have never 
known a more patriotic man ; I have never known a more 
thoroughly American man, and I have never known a more 
unfaltering Republican. (Applause). 



)%^ 



I want also to say to all of you that to every member 
of his family this splendid testiraonal of your appreciation 
of him as man, citizen and public servant, is gratif3'inCT be- 
3"ond anything I shall undertake to express. As spokes- 
man for the rest of the family we thank you, one and all, 
from the bottom of our hearts, that you should pay him 
this tribute as he now comes to lay down the armor he has 
so worthily worn. (Great applause). 

But I am reminded that I have a sentiment to discuss. 
The committee have been very kind to me. They have not 
only given me a good subject, but they have told me to take 
unlimited time. The committee shall not outdo me in ihe 
matter of kindness. T, too, will be generous. I will not 
abuse the privilege afforded. I shall limit myself, but not 
at any expense to the subject. 

The Republican Party 

Is a sentiment tliat does not need very much said for it by 
anybody at this time. (Applause). The truth is, the Re- 
l)ublican party is just now speaking for itself, and speaking 
more eloquently, more forcibly, more efFectuall}-, than any 
man can speak for it. 

Any kind of full discussion of this sentiment would 
appropriately involve some mention of the great questions 
out- of which this organization gi'ew ; and it may be ex- 
pected that I should say something in relation to these 
questions. However that may be, let me say I shall not 
speak here to-night of the past of Republicanism. The 
past can take care of itself. SufKce it to say tlie achieve- 
ments of this organization constitute the brightest chapter 
in American history. The}' are known to all tlie world, 
and are at once the pi'ide, the admiration and the glory of 
the whole American people. 

I want to talk about the present and the future of the 
Re[>ublican party. The first great duty of the Republican 



/^^ 



n 
o 



party is to cirry Ohio in 1895 (great applause), aii<l tlic 
Nation in 1S9G. (Great applause). And we nui.st not 
only carry Ohio and the Nation, but we must carry them 
by such an overwhelming majority as will at once express 
the confidence of the people of this country in Republican- 
ism, and the condemnation they feel for the incompetency 
of Democracy. (Applause). 

In this behalf we have anothei- duty, and that is to 
preserve harmou}'^ among ourselves. (Applause). That 
statement is one frequently made. You hear it every year 
— ic has become something of a platitude. But let me say 
to you, my fellow Republicans, that I do not speak it in any 
[•erfundtoiy way here to-night. I speak it with all the 
seriousness that comes from the conviction I l:ave that the 
mischief-maker is abroad in the land. I do not I'efer to 
Tom McDougall, who is socunstitued he can not help doing 
what he does, but to the fact that you can not pick up a 
Democratic newspaper — at least I have not been able to 
do so since the last election — without finding its columns 
teomirg with sensational accounts of [)lots and countei'- 
plots, plans and schemes, inti'igues and machinations born 
<jf alleged jealousies and rivalries, whereby one set of Re- 
publicans are seeking to overthrow and destroy souk^ other 
set of Republicans. 

I now and then see my name in tiie newspapers in this 
connection, and occasionallv I see Gov. Mclviidcy'.s name 
used in the same way. Sometimes I have thought that 1 
would sav something in answer to this, that or the other 
article of that character — then have felt that I would not 
go otit of mv wav to digiiifv such stniT with attention. 
But now that I am on my feet, and the moment seems op- 
portune, let me say that, so far at least as I am concerned, 
and so far, I hope, as Gov. Mclvinley is concerned, 
all sttch articles are but the sheerest fabrications. (Tre- 
mendous applause and cheers). We otight to be abhi with- 



r^ 



out suggestion to understand wln^ such articles are pub- 
lished and be able to discount them in advance. They 
come from a defeated and despairing Democracy that are 
without hope of maintaining power where they have it, or 
securing power where they haven't it, except tliey can make 
trouble in our ranks. (Applause). 

That is good politics for Democrats, but it would be 
mighty bad politics for Republicans to let them succeed. 
(Applause) . Let us not be guilty of bad politics, especially 
not in this year 1895, and by changing the control of this 
Government, bring to the administration of our affairs a 
patriotism and broad, comprehensive statesmanshi|) liiat 
will take care of the intei'ests of America against all the 
world. (Applause). Let us stand by one another as we 
cro forward shoulder to shoulder in the discharge of the 
high duty that rests upon us. (Applause). If so, we will 
come into power, and when we do there will be plenty of 
offices to go around. There will be one for every man, 
woman and child in the Republican party. I don't mean 
there will be Presidencies enough to go around. There is 
only one Presidency, and Governor Mclvinley is to have 
that. (Great applause and cheers). 

Nor do I mean there will be U. S. Senatorships enough 
to go around, (Cries, " Foraker will have that " ; great ap- 
plause), and there won't be enough Governorshii)s or mem- 
l)erships in Congress or in the Legislature to go around; 
but I do mean to call your attention to the fact that one of 
the best offices in tl;e Republican party is the one I have 
l)een holding for the last six years, the office of a high pri- 
vate in the rear ranks. (Applause). As I remarked, I 
have been holding that office for the last six years, and 
they have been the happiest years of my life. I do not ex- 
pect to ever have another period of such uninterrupted en- 
joyment as I have had dui'ing the last six years. T know, 
therefore, whereof I speak, my fellow Republicans, when I 



//^ 



say if you do not cret anything else, that is good enough. 
I would rather be a Republican in the rear ranks than to 
be President of the United States as a Democrat. (Ap- 
plause) . So let us have no bickerings; let us have no 
jealousies; let us have no trouble in our own camp, but 
make all the trouble we can in the camp of the enemy. 
(Great aplause) . 

When we set into office we will have some duties to 
discharge, which I can not discuss here, but will mention. 
We will have to revise the tariff on protection lines. We 
will not have any serious difference of opinion upon this 
subject. Our Democratic fi-iends are quite willing now 
after their recent experience to leave tliat to us. (Laugh- 
ter). We will not have any difference of opinion either. 
I take it, upon the question of restoring the policy of re- 
ciprocity so happily inaugurated, so recklessly destroyed. 
1 hope there will be no difference of opinion either as to 
what shall be done with the dominions of the late " Queen 
Lil." I believe that we ought to take under our flag every 
inland that possesses for us such advantages. This thing 
of not being able to look out from our shores across the 
Atlantic or Pacific without seeing an English Hag floating 
from every island of the sea in front of us, with English 
guns to protect it, is one thing the American people ought 
to be getting tired of ; at least to the extent of allowing 
those who want to cast in -their lots with us to do so. 
(Applause) . 

One otiier thing I want to see done. T want to see the 
Nicaragua Canal built. (Applause). It is one of the 
majestic enterprises of our time. The world demands it, 
and the world will have it. If wc do not build it somebody 
else will. We must do it (applause) , and we must control 
it. These are a few of the things we must do. I do not 
Ijelieve there will be much difference of opinion as to any 
of them. 



«1 



6 

And, then, when we are through with all these matters, 
when we have revised the tariff', when we have restored 
reciprocit}', when we have built that canal, and when we 
liave extended our commercial relations, and increased our 
nav}" until it is adequate to protect our interests in all the 
world, we will have another question about which we may 
not be so well agreed, and that is the silver question. This 
question is pressing for settlement and it must l)e settled. 
The Republican party is pledged to bimetallism, to the use 
of both gold and silver as money, subject to such condi- 
tions as will enable us to maintain the [)arity of the two 
metals. (Applause). The Republican party does not be- 
lieve in fifty-cent dollars, but it does believe in both gold 
and silver dollars, each worth exactly the same. We be- 
lieve in bimetallism in the sense that silver shall be 
more than a credit money. It must be again made a 
money of ultimate redemption, and as such take its place 
alongside of gold. (Applause) . 

We are pledged to this, and the question is as to how 
to accomplish it. We agree that by an international ratio 
we can put silver where it rightfully belongs. There is 
likely to be another intei'uational monetiiry conference, 
asked for this time b\' Europe, and it is probable the long 
desired result can be attained. If so, tliat settles it, and 
most hajipily. lUit if that should fail, as other conferences 
have, then it will I'cmain for this country to find some 
way, yet to be devised, to woi'k out a solution. I do not 
know what that way wuU be. It is not U)V any one man to 
name it, but foi- the best judgment of the Kcpublican party, 
which has in the past been equal to all cinei-gencies, and 
ean master this. This much, howcviM', may be safely said. 
that the way when found will keep gold and silver at par 
with each other and make them both, as the fathers made 
them, the money of ultimate redemption. (A[)plause). 
This being our setttled [)uiposc. we must at all times 



/^r 



jealously giiaivi our pledge to maintain the parity of the 
two metals. We have given this pledge in our platform, 
and we have put it into the law of tlie land. Tf we once 
permit this parity to be destroyed and allow this country 
to be placed on the single gold standard basis, bimetallism 
will be thereby made an impossibility. This leads me to 
s ly to the Republican members of Congress from Ohio who 
did so that they made no mistake when they voted against 
Grover Cleveland's gold bond scheme. (Loud applause). 

To issue a ixold bond in contradistinction to a coin 
bond upon the ground that a coin bond is pa3'able in silver 
is, as I have said, to inevitably destroy the parity of the two 
metals, and to make bimetallism forever an impossibility. 
The saving of .$16,000,000 at such an expense would be 
straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. 

The men who voted down the gold bond business did 
right, and the gentleman, their colleague, who differed from 
them ami voted for a gold bond, and who was given a ban- 
quet at the St. Nicholas last Monday night, made the only 
mistake that was made, as time will show. 

Now, my fellow Republicans, on that question there 
mav be some differences of opinion among us. I refer to 
it to-nio;ht because I wanted to sav that much to the Re- 
l)ublican members of Congress who voted against gold 
bonds, and because I want to invite every Republican to 
commence a study of tnat question, for it is one of the most 
momentous impoi-tance, not only to tlie people of this 
country, but to the people of the whole world. Just now. 
above all other times, when England even, as was shown 
l)y the vote of her Parliament, and Germany, as sliown by 
the vote of the Reichstag, and Fi'anc(\ sj^eaking through 
her Finance Minister, are all alike asking for a monetary 
conference, at which this question may be further considered, 
we should stand firmlv to our gi'ound. This is a time 



r^ 



8 



of all others when we should hold on to the position 
of the Republican party. 

If the Republican party shall meet in its characteristic 
way, and with its characteristic success, all these great 
(Questions, as I believe and feel that I know it will, its con- 
tinuance in power will extend beyond the life of anybody 

here. 

Only our own folly or shortcoming can induce the 
American people to experiment again with Democracy 
while living witnesses remain of what we are nov,' endur- 
ing. (Long continued applause) . 



/ 



7^ 



Speech of 

HON. J. B. FORAKER 

Nominating for the Presidency 

Governor Wm* McKinley 

At the National Republican Convention, St. Louis, Mo. 

June 18, 1896. 



il/r. Cliainiinn and (iniiU'Wcii of flic Coni'tntiuii : 

It would i)o pxceodini^ly (liHicult. if not entirely inii)Ossi- 
Itle, to ox:i<i^er;(t-' llx- (lis;igre{\-il)l(> expei'ienocs of the last 
foui- years. TIk^ «;ran(l Hi;-jrr(^o;ato of tiic multilutlinons had 
results of a DiMnoeratie Nati«)ii:il .Miministration may he 
sumnit'd up as one stupendous disaster ; it has heen a dis- 
aster, liowever, not without at least one rede(Uiiini; feature. 
It has heen fair — noi)ody has eseap'.'d. It has fr.lli'U (Mpially 
and alike ui»on all sect ions of our country and all (dasses of 
our p(.>pnlation. The just and the unjust, the Kcpuhli<'an 
and the Democrat, the rich and the poor, the hi^h and the 
low, liave suffered in common. Idleness and its eonse<iuenl 
])overtv and distress have heen the rewards of lahor ; dis- 
tress ami hankruptcy hav(> overtaken husiness ; shrunken 
values have dissipated fortunes; delicient revenues have 



impoverished tlie Government, wlule bond issues and bond 
syndicates have discredited and scandalized the Nation. 
Over against tliis fearful penalty we can set down one 
o-reat, blessed, compensatory result. It has desti'oyed the 
Democratic party. The proud columns that swept the 
country in triumph in 1892 are broken and hopeless in 
1896. Their boasted principles when put to the test of a 
practical application have proven delusive fallacies, and 
their o-reat leaders have degenerated into warring chieftains 
of hostile and irreconcilable factions. 

Their a[)proaching National Convention is but an ap- 
proaching National nightmare. No man pretends to be 
able to predict any good result to come from it, and no man 
is seeking its nomination except only the limited few who 
have advertised their unfitness for any kind of a public 
trust by proclaiming their willingness to stand on any sort of 
platform that may be adopted. The truth is, the party 
that could stand up under the odium of luiman slavery, 
opposition to th(> wai- i'ov the pi-eservation of the .Union, 
emancipation enfranchisement, reconstruction and specie 
resumption, at last finds itself overmatched and undone by 
it^^elf. It is wi'ithing in tlie throes of final dissolution 
superinduced l)y a dose of its own doctrines. No hunnin 
airencv can i)revent its absolute overthi-ow at the next elec- 
tion except only this convention. If we make no mistake 
here the Democratic }>arty will go out of power on the 4th 
day of March, 1897, to remain out of powei- until (iod in 
his wisdom, and tnercy, and goodness shall see fit once 
more to chastise his people. So far we have not made any 
mistake. We have adopted a platform which, notwith- 
standinjx the scenes witnessed in this iiall this morning, 
meets the demands and expectations of the American 
people. It remains for us now, as the last crowning act of 
our work here, to again meet that same expectation in the 



/ 



f^ 



iioiniiKition of our (.•inulidatf. Wliat is that expectation? 
\<\vM (lt» tlie people waiit'.^ You all do know. 

Tlu\v want soim^thing- more than a ii;ood business man ; 
lliey want something; more th;in a crood Republican ; they 
want s(^methino; more tlian a fearless leader; they want 
something more than a wise. ])atriotic statesman ; they 
wa.nt a man who embodies in himself not only all these es- 
sential (pialitications, ])nt wlio in addition, in the highest 
possible degree, typifies in name, character, recoi-d, ambi- 
ti(-in and purpose the exact opposite of all that is signitit'd 
and represented by the present U-q^. trade, deficit making, 
bond issuing, laboi- saving Democratic administration. I 
stand here to present to this convention such a man. 11 is 
name is William McKiidey. [Prolonged apj)laii^!c) . 

Yi)u seem to have heaid the name of my candidate 
b('f()i'(>. .\nd so you have. He is known to all the world. 
His testimonials are a private life without reproach ; four 
y(>ars of hei'oic service as a boy soldier for the I'nion nn 
ilie battle-fields of the Kei>ublic, under such gt'uerals as 
gallant Phil Sheridan; twelve years of conspicuous 
service in tlie halls of Congress, associated with such 
great leaders and chnmpions of Ive])ui)licanisin as 
James (1. Blaine; foui- yeais of executive ex- 
])t'rience as Governor of Ohio; but, gi-eatest of all, 
measui-ed by present requirements, leader of the House of 
Kepresentativt^s and authoi- of the McKinley.Law — a law 
under which lalxn- had the richest i-ewai-ds and the country 
generally the greatest pros[)erity ever enjoyed in all our 
history. Xo other name so completely meets the re(|uire- 
nients of the American people ; no other man so abvolulely 
commands their hearts and their affections '["\\o shatts ot 
envy and jealousy, slander and libel, calumny and detrac- 
tion lie broken at his feet. They have all been shot, and 
sliot in vain. Th(^ quiver is empty and he is untouched. 



f 



The Amei'ican people know biin, trust him, believe in hini, 
love him, and tiiey will not allow him to be unjustlv^ dis- 
paraged in their estimation. The\- know he is patriotic ; 
they know he is an American of Americans ; they know 
lie is wise and experienced ; that he is able and just, an<l 
thev want him for President of the United States. Thev 
have already so declared ; not in this or that state or sec- 
tion, but in all the states and all the sections from ocean 
to ocean and from the gulf to the lakes. Tiiey expect us to 
give them a chance to vote for him. If we do we shall give 
joy to their hearts, enthusiasm to the campaign aud tri- 
timphant victors^ to our cause ; and he in tui-n will give us 
an administration under which the country will enter upon 
a new era of prosperity at home and of glory and honor 
abroad. By all these tokens of tbe present, and all these 
promises for the future, in the name of the forty-six dele- 
gates from Ohio, I submit his claims to vour considera- 
tion. 



9^9^9^ 



J 



f^ 



Datification ^peech of 

Hon. J. B. Foraker 

At Springer Hall, Cincinnati. 



JUNE 20, 1896. 



Mr. Clifii.-tiiait, Ladicii and Gvydlemoi : 

It is a pleasure to me, although the oircumstances are 
not vei-y j.)ropitious, to have the honor of presiding here 
this evening, and 1 thank the young gentlemen having this 
meeting in charge accordingly. 

There are a number of reasons, liowevei-, why I shall 
not detain you at any length. In the first place, i^ is the 
duty of a presiding officer to preside. That is my business 
this evening. I shall introduce to you those who are to 
address you upon tiie subject which has bi'ought us togethc; . 
Another very good reason for my not undertaking to ad- 
dress you at length is the fact that I haven't very much 
voice to do it with. I left most of my voice at St. 
Louis, {hnigjiicr] . lam not disposed to make any com- 
plaint about that, however, for I realize that I lost it in a 
good cause, and that I have an abundant compensation in 
the magnilicent re.stdts we there achieved. {Aj>phi 

But there is still another reason, more forcible than 
anv other, why I should leave the speaking to others. 
This is a ratification meeting. Wo have assembled for the 
purpo.se of expressing approval of that which was done l»y 
the National Republican Convention. 1 had the honor to 
be a member of that Convention, and in a huinl-1'' way t<> 



11 



^ 



contribute to bring about tliose results whicli you have 
come liere to-night for tlie purpose of considering. For 
that reason it would seem to be moi-e })ropei' at least to 
leave tlie speaking to othei-s, as I propose to do. 

And yet tliere are one or two things I -vvant to take 
advantage of t])is opportunity to say. In the first place, it 
is gratifying to n.e lo know that one of the fii-sf i-atification 
ni(>etings held in all the country is this held here in Cin- 
cinnati, in the princij)a] city of the state in which (Jovernor 
McKiidey lives. {AppkuiHc) . And \ am glad that it is 
hrld here on this spot of so mucli political historic intei-est 
— h(dd in a liall (it is somewhat changed since I last stood 
on this platform, but we will insist that i( is the same old 
hall) where (xovernor McKiidey has so frequently stood to 
thrill the Republicans of this county with his matchless 
eloquence and patriotic appeals in bidialf of the the cause 
of Republicanism, [dvcat applause) . 

I'lItST IN TH[<: i'lKIJ). 

r know that wlicii he leai'ns that tlie Repul)licans of 
the Queen City have first of all i-allied to a meeting foi- his 
indorsement, it will l)e most gratifyiiig news lo him, it will 
be an encouragement to him as he enters upon the great 
contest that is to be crowned wirh such a magnificent tri- 
umpii in November ne.xt. {Applattsc] . 

It is duo him also and due our cause that wt^ here in 
Cincinnati shoidd take the i\viii ste[), in the i)resence of the 
Ri?l)ublicans of the whole Union, in indoi'sing our ukjsI il- 
lustrious citizen, when named, as he has been, for the 
highest honor that ilu> Nation can confer. [AppJanKi). 

So far as out" work at St. Louis was concfM'ned in notn- 
inatiug a candidate, nobody is eniitl(>d lo much credit. 

W'e oidy registered there the will of the American peo- 
ple. (Grcaf applause) . From one end of this country to 
the other, even in the states that sent delegates to support 



8 

other caiulidatos, William MoKinley IkkI bet u mdiiiuatod 
foi- the Presidency l)efore the Si. Louis cunvcntion spoke. 
{Applaxxr) . He was uoiniiiattHl Viy the peoi)le of this 
couiili-y spontaneously expressing tlieir desi?"e, because they 
recoi2;ni/-ed that in him they found the most complete oppo- 
sition i"e]ii'esented to all tliat is signified by t]^l.■^ l)emocratic 
administration we have had at Washington for the last 
three years. {Cheers and applause). 

We have made a great deal of progress since 1892. Wi 
thought we knew it all then, and we walked up to the bal- 
lot box and voted with resj^ect to the tariff question as 
thougli we knew all about it. Well, some of us did 
know all al>out it, and some of us didn't, l)Ut now we all 
undei'stand it. (Ltjuijhtir a/i<J applause) . And from one 
Q\\(\ oT this land to tli(^ otliei- the American peopU' are 
ready to say at the ballot box, and will say, that we hav( 
had all th(^ free trade we are going to have for the next 
fifty years to come. {Applause) . 

Maj. McKinley i-epresentod more conspicuously than 
any other Republican the itlea of protection to American 
industi'ies and Ameiican labor, and his (dcction to the 
Pi'esidency will signify to the world more enijdiat ically 
than any othei- man's election could that the American 
people propose to take cai'e of their industries and iIk.mi" la- 
borers, and let the rest of the world look after itself. In 
otlu-r words, his nommalion means that we are determined 
to return t(^ the policy of a protective tarill, and lureaftei 
maintain il against all comers. 

Tii.\T NKw v.niiK i;i.i;i'n.\.\r. 

Now, I want to take advantage oi ihis t»|)[ioi-tiinily ti' 
say a word about another mattei'. I was very much edi- 
fied as I rode home on the cars this evening by a cartoon 
(hat was pid)lished in one of the evening pa()irs. It wa^ 
a picture of what was called " A new white ele[)har.t,' wwd 



1^1 



labeled '-(rokl," and 1 was tliere, along with some other 
Republicans, worshiping tliis new white elephant, and tlu> 
lesson sought to be taught was that the Republican party 
had declared in its money plank for something new at St. 
Louis. That is not true. 

The declaration of the Republican party, as embodied 
in its money plank at St. Louis, defiires exactly what lias 
been the position of tlie Republican party through all these 
years v;ith respect to this silver (piestion. [ Apphmsc) . 
Silver was demonetized in 1878, and. ever since that we 
have been on a single gold standai'd basis. About the 
same time sevei-al of the leading nations of Kui-ope demon- 
etized silver, and ever since that time an effort has been 
made to got back to bimetallism. We have had in tiiat 
behalf three international monetary cunferences, ilie object 
ot tliem beinf>- to agree with other nations upon an inter- 
national ratio, according to wliich we could have ilie free 
coinaire of silver. But all these efforts have failed. 

It has been coustatitly and repeatedly de<-lared l)y 
i)otli parties tliat bimetallism was desirable in prefcri'iire to 
gold oi* silver monometallisni. Both parties have agi-eed 
lliat we could maintain the pai'itv of tlie two nirtals and 
l)rino; about bimetallism again bv an intei'iiational agree- 
luent. Some peojde have insisted in the meanwhile that 
if we could not do it that waV; we coidd do it alone 
without regard to what other nations might see til to do. 
'i'lii' Republican party has constantly, consistently and 
])ersistently stood up against that idea. 

Kour years ago, wiien we hold the C'Onvention at Min- 
neapolis, it was my fortune to be the C'hairnian of the Com- 
miiteeon Resolutions, as I was at the St. Louis convention, 
and it was inv fortune to bo associated on that conunittee 
with Senator Teller. He and his associates from the silver 
states came to that Convention and came before that com- 
mittee, asking us to insert a plank pledging the Republican 



7i 



o 



pany to tlio (Vee coinage of silver. Wo refused to do it. 
We declared that we were in favor of international biniet- 
alisni, but that untd that could be brought; about it would 
l)e our policy to n.>aintain silver at a pai-ity with gold by 
issuing \\\i more of it than could lu' maintained at a pai-ity 
with gold. 

thkn ano now. 

They accepted the I'osult and I'oniained in the Republi- 
can party. That dedai'ation was .simply a detdai'ation , 
as the one adopted the other day was, tliat we would stand 
precistdy where we were until we could do better. We weie 
agreed that we could safely undei-talv(> to have bimetalism 
by inttUMiational agreement ; we were unwilling and refused 
to attempt it by fi-ee and ind(>pendent coinage. 

They did not feel r;illed upon to go out of the i)arty 
then ; their conscienc(^s did not seem to trotdde them so 
muidi tlien as now. They I'emained in the party four yeai's 
longer. When the last .session ol Congress commenced, as 
a result of tins Democratic fi'ee ;r:i(le exjjerinnml, the 
(rOvernmMif wis found to have deficient revenues, U'lt 
enough revenues to meet its current expenses. A l)ill \\:s 
prepared in the House and passed that body withoul par- 
tisan division, almost, providing for an increas(^ of rev - 
nue. That l>ill w.is kmnvn as ihe Dingley bill. Il wetit to 
the Senate. 'I'he N.Uionul civdir, the N.ilional lioum-, the 
National life were ;;t slake. These gemlemen said the bill 
w'as unol)jectionai)le, but they refused to vote i'ur it (that is, 
six of ih'se gentlemen from silver states did) unless the 
gi'eat maioritv who diil not ai^ree with them would saci'i- 
hce their convictions and vole for the Iree, uniimitiMl and 
indep<mdent coinage of silver The great majority in ihi- 
Senate would not be coerced by that minority. 

That action upon the part of these people directed the 
attention of the country to that subject as it had not been 



^^ 



6 



directed before. And, tliei'efore, when we met. at St. Louis 
conditions were ripe, nut for a different .stand to Ije taken 
by the Republican party, but for uiore explicit decKar- 
ations than we had heretofore made, and, inasmucli 
as they Itad thrown down the gage of battle by de- 
manding free .silver and seeking to coerce us to accept, we 
concluded that was a good time to meet tliem lialf way, 
join issue and let the battle come on. [Applavu) . They 
appeared before the committee, and were [>art of the com- 
jnittee, just as they were four years ago. They made the 
same demand ; we made the same answei" ; but when w*- 
came to write the i)1atforiu we said, we will make it so 
j)lain all can understand, and so we declared that we were 
unalterably opposed to the free and unlimited coinage 
of silver until we can have an international agreement, 
and in the meantime we will preserve the existing gold 
standard. {Loud appJaufic). 

A I'.\KI)0.N.\1!I.K IXTERRITI'TIO.N. 

At this i)()int the Stamina League and other clubs 
mai'ched in and inhM-rupted the speaker. Ahev the clubs 
had been seated, ScMialor l'\)raker resutucd his s[)e6ch as 
follows : 

To resume^ and conclude with a woi'd, tii(> pf>ini I was 
-eeking to jnake was this : That when Senator Teller and 
his associates bolted the party at the St. Louis Convenii<»n, 
tltey had no cause foi' it wliatevei- tliat did not exist four 
veai's before at the Miiinc^apolis Convention, and when the 
liepublican i>arty made the declaration it did make at St. 
Louis it did not change its position one particle, but simply 
made it absolutely certain, in order tliat there could be a 
a settlejuent of that question, that the proposition for free, 
independent and tmlimited coinage of silver is a proposi- 
tion that we will not entertain, {('lurrt-- and apphiusc). 
We will not ent(Mtain it because, in our judgment, it does 



^ (^a 



not. ;is Senator Tellei- and liis associatos claim, mean l)i- 
nietallisni. hut simi>ly silver monometallism. [Ajiitlait.v) . 

Accoi-diniT to a law as settled as the law of gravita- 
tion, the cheaper money always di-ives out the dearer. To 
have free, unlimitetl coinage of silver would mean to put 
the United States of America in the same class with Mex- 
ico, C-hina and Japan, and so long as the Re{)ublican 
l)arty has control the Ignited States will never get into 
that class. {('liters). 

We go into this tiglit, tluM-efore, with our gallant 
standard l)earer representing to the peoph^ of America 
protection to American industries and American laboi- and 
an absolutely sound dollai- with which to do oui' l>usiness. 
{ApjtIdiiH,'). An aI)solutely sound dollar, not simj)l3- for 
the banker and and the merchant, but for the wage-earner 
as well. iC/icers.) When a man does a full day's work, 
he is entitled to have a full one liundred cents in the dollar 
will) which he is i>aid, and we pro[)ose that he shall have 
it. ( .\j)j)l(nisi ) . We i)ropose that the dolhir wt> put into 
circuhition — the miMalUc dollar — shall be worth one hund- 
red cents in gold all over tiie wi.)rld, no matter whetlier 
it ca.rries t!ie eagle and superscriptions oi- not. Take a sil- 
ver dollar and pound it into Itullion and it is woi'lh lifty- 
foiir .eents ; take a gold dull.ir and pound it into bullion 
and it is worth one huudi-eil eents all over the world. (.!/'- 
pinnsv). Nobody is cheated by that kind of a dollar; no- 
body is misled by it ; no distrust is excited ; (n"eryi)ody has 
contldence in it ; :ind when (!ov. McKinley shall have been 
tdecLed jn-osperity will at once eome again, because that 
wdl insure a [)rotective taritf, reciprocity and a sound cur- 
rency. (Grt'ttf appkiKsc and checrii) . 



X 6 / 



FORAKER 




^^ 



X 



A GREAT SPEECH 

BY 

Senator-Elect J. B. Foraker 

ON THE OCCASION OF THE 

Opening of the Ohio Republican Campaign at 
Columbus, August 15, 1896. 



Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: — I am not behind Sen- 
ator Sherman in the matter of having a prepared speech. But it is 
not my fault that I have it in that form. The newspapers have a 
habit of requiring us, when we make opening speeches, as they call 
them, to write them out beforehand and send them to them, in 
order that they may be in type before they are delivered. I have 
complied with that requirement. It is not my fault, as I have 
said, that I did; but that is all they can require of me. I want you 
to know that I have made that kind of a speech, and now I am 
going to make such a speech as I feel like making. (Applause.) 
I think it is a good sp)eech, and I would like to have you read it. 
But if you do not, it will never be read. 

Now the first thing I want to say to you is, that the thought that 
has been uppermost in my mind as I have been sitting here this 
afternoon looking out on this audience and listening to the magnifi- 
cent address that has ju.^t been delivered (cheering), the thought, I 
say, that has been in my mind is, why is it that we have to have 
any meetings at all this year? Why is it that Senator Sherman 
must come here, and with the thermometer ranging in the nineties, 
jeopardize his grand life to discuss propositions in antagonism to 
Democracy? I do not know why it is, unless it is that the Dem- 
ocratic party never knows when it is dead. 

When we got through with the campaign last year, on election 
night, as I sat by the side of the operator in Cincinnati and heard 
him read off a message to the effect that Ohio had elected Bushnell 
governor by more than 1)0,000, I said: "Thank God; not only that 
Bushnell has been elected, but that it won't be necessary to have 
any more meetings for at least twenty-five years. (Laughter and 
applause.) Notwithstanding, here we are. And a little bit earlier 
this year than usual. Vv e generally wait until the middle of Sep- 
tember before we commence our campaign, but here now it is only 
the middle of dog-days (laughter), the loth day of August, and 
we are having an" opening of a campaign, and have assembled here 
one of the grandest meetings of the citizens of this commonwealth 
ever assembled in the state of Ohio. 



Why is it? Why it is because, as Senator Sherman has been 
telling us, we have a new question this j'ear. The Democracy have 
made a new issue. Why is it they made a new issue? Did not the 
Democracy know everything there was to know from the beginning? 
(Laughter.) I will tell you why it is we have a new issue. They 
have run completely out of the old. They were whipped to a 
standstill before they started on the tariff, and they were defeated 
before they started in on t/ae tariff, because, unlike 1892, we 
now, all of us, understand the tariff question. You cannot find 
a laboring man anywhere in the United States Avho does not 
novv' understand it without an argument having to be made to 
him, that if you make a product across the M'ater in some 
other country you do not have to make it in this country. (Cheer- 
ing.) That if you make it over there there is an increased demand 
for labor — over there (laughter) — and that much less demand for 
labor — over here. (Renewed laughter.) That is what the laboring 
man has learned. 

The farmer has learned something, too. Times have been pretty 
hard on him. He is selling his products at the cheapest price ever 
known since before the war. He has found out that to have good 
demand and to get good prices for his product he must have a good 
home market. (Cheering.) He must have those products which 
the vVmerican people want to make use of — made not by English- 
men or Germans or Frenchmen, who will constitute home markets 
for the farmers in those countries, but made by the honest sons of 
toil of our own country, who constitute a home market for his 
products. (Applause.) 

And the banker has found out something. I remember when I 
lived here in Columbus for a short time I thought Brother Hunt- 
ington, who sits on the platform, knew everything about banking, 
but he knows more now, I venture, than he did then. He knew 
much then in a general way; now he knoAvs it in a practical form. 
A man in the banking business gets along better and makes more 
when all the laboring men are eniployed and when the farmers are 
having some place to sell their products. 

And the dry goods man, and every other kind of a business man 
in America hasfound out the difference between protection and 
free trade. (Applause.) 

And then there is Uncle Sam himself. He has found out some- 
tliing. (Laughter and applause.) In the 27 years the Republican 
party controlled this country, after the close of the war down to 
1892, we paid off and cancelled forever more than one thousand 
seven hundred millions of the public debt. During the three years 
and a fraction of Democratic free trade rule, they have paid off 
nothing, but have increased the public debt by more than 
$262,000,000. Uncle Sam is just now calculating how long, 
at that rate, it will take him to get out of debt. (Laughter 
and applause, and cries of '-Hit him again.") He has made 
up his mind, like some other people did in 1892, that he 



wants a change; and lie Avill liave a (.•liange just as soon as tl)(.' 
law and the constitution will allow it. (Applause.) And it 
was because the Democratic party foresaw that this was to 
come to pass in November that they thought they had bet- 
ter try and have a new issue this year. They did not want 
to go to Irattle again on the tarili, and the result is we have 
this money ciuestion. I have told you why Ave have it. Let me 
now tell you sinne of the objections I have to it, before I commence 
to tell you of the nature of it. 

I object to it in the first place because the Democratic party pro- 
poses it, (Great laughter, applause and cries of "That is suffi- 
cient." "That is enough.") Now that is not a bigoted idea. That 
is founded on reason. (More applause and cheering.) I will tell 
you why. It is enough to settle it with me that the Democratic 
party proposes it, for I have been pretty well acquainted as an out- 
side looker on, with that party for the last forty years, and in all 
that time, it has never failed to be on the wrong side of every great 
national question. 

You know how it was in war times; how it was in the recon- 
struction period. Yoil will remember how they caressed the rag 
baby. (Laughter and applause.) You will remember how it was 
about specie redemption. Why, Mr. Sherman talks here as though 
disposed to take exception to their criticism of him in connection 
with the act of 1873. Have you forgotten, senator; has any man 
forgotten how the Democrats of this country assailed him and 
abused him and maligned him because of his grand work in con- 
nection with resumption in 1879? (Long continued applause.) 

And not to be tedious about it, they were not only wrong about 
all the questions to which I have just adverted, but they were 
wrong, as I was trying to indicate awhile ago, about their proposi- 
tion of free trade on which they carried the country in 1892, and 
so it is, I say, they have not advanced an idea, they have not put 
forward a proposition in the last forty years with respect to the ad- 
ministration of our national aliairs that has met with accej)tance 
and today enjoys the approval of the people of the United States. 
(More cheering.) 

Now, when a party has had forty years of unsuccessful trial. I, 
somehow or other, lose confidence in them (cheering and laughter), 
especially when they come to me with a ncAV proposition, admit- 
ting in the presentation of it that they have failed beyond 
expectation with respect to the last ou'.' that they advanced. 

And so I say I am opposed to this in the first place, Itecausr the 
Democratic party has put it forth. But I have other objection to 
it. The Democratic newspapers do not seem to like it. One-half 
the Democratic party itself do(_s not a]>prove this new ]»ropo- 
sition. Now, when the Democratic i>arty l>rin«rs forwartl something 
so bad that one-half of its own party cannot stomach it, I do not 
want them to ask me«to take it down. (Great laughter and cheer- 
ing-) 



Here is what thej* have to say about it. I want to read just 
two or three extracts from leading Democratic newspapers to show 
you how they criticise this new issue. The New York World, is I 
suppose, the greatest Democratic newspaper in the country. I un- 
derstand that it admits that it is. (Great laughter.) 

Here is what the New York World says about this new proposi- 
tion : "The platform was dictated by lunacy." (Cheering and 
cries of "Good enough, that is right.") 

The New York Post says: "In point of morals, it is baser than 
anything every avowed heretofore by any political party in this 
country, outside of the slavery question." (More applause.) 

The Philadelphia Times says: "The platform should be shunned 
by patriotic voters as they would shun pestilence." (Renewed 
cheering.) 

And yet they talk about getting Republicans to vote that way. 
Well, thev cannot get me. (Continued applause and cries of "Me 
either!") ' 

The Philadelphia Record denounces it "As a declaration for re- 
pudiation, anarchy and dishonor." 

I will not stop to read any thing more. But lot me add that 
those are but fair samples of what has been said by all — or most 
all of the great and leading Democratic newspapers of the North- 
ern states; more than 100 of them, spreading all over the country 
from the Atlantic to the Pacific seaboard, have denounced it in 
that manner. And all their greatest and most trusted, and at least 
by us, the most respected leaders, have denounced it in similar 
language. When I lived here my friend, Joseph H. Outhwaite, 
was thought to be a pretty good Democrat and a very respectable 
man. Have you heard of him pledging his support to Bryan, free 
silver and this newly-converted apostle of the new idea. Brother 
Lentz? (Prolonged applause.) There is another objection. Did you 
ever stop to study the personel of the convention that nominated 
Mr. Bryan? (A voice — "Which convention?") 

I do not know how many conventions he has been nominated 
by. First he was nominated by the Democratic convention at 
Chicago. Then he was nominated by the Populistic convention at 
St. Louis. Then he was nominated by the silver convention at St. 
Louis; and then he was nominated by the National convention, or 
indorsed, or something of that sort. But, however it may be, Mr. 
Bryan was nominated l)y botli the Democratic and Populistic con- 
ventions, and they will icpresent the great mass of the few people 
who support him at the polls. (Great cheering and laughter.) 

Who were the prominent actors in those conventions? Who 
were the men there representing constituencies and claiming to 
have a new light about finances? Who were the profound con- 
stitutional lawyers and the wise financiers of these bodies? I want 
to read you a few of their names that I thought of today as I came 
up liere. And I want to tell you that a proposition, without mean- 
ing to disparage those* people at all, that comes from them, to af- i 
feet me, is not going to meet my approval, nor with yours, I think. 



7- C 



until we hear what other people think about it anyhow. (Cheer- 
ing.) Well, there was Governor Altgeld (great laughter and cries 
of "Hang him.") and "Pitchfork" Tillman (renewed laughter.) 
And along with them as the next chief actor on that side of the 
convention was this man, who, when last heard from, was threaten- 
ing "to blow the livers and lights" out of the Federal troops if 
Cleveland should send them into Texas as he had sent them into 
Chicago to suppress the riots there. I refer to Governor Hogg. 
(Continued ap])lause and laughter.) Altgeld, Tillman and Hogg I 
-(Renewed applause and laughter.) 

And then when the Populists assembled the chief instrumental- 
ities for good there were "Cyclone" Davis from Sulphur Spring, 
Tex. (Long continued laughter.) He made at least three speeches 
at every session of the convention, and he was ably seconded by 
*'Stump" Ashley and "Buffalo" Jones, and "Commonweal" Coxey, 
the last but not least, Mary Ellen Lease. (Long continued ap- 
plause and laughter.) There you have it. Senator Hill of New 
York, Governor Russell of Massachusetts, and men of that char- 
acter, men of that ability, men of that record, men of their belief, 
tried in that convention to keep it from making the fatal mistake 
it did make, but all in vain. The votes, if not the brains of those 
conventions, belonged to the Cyclone Davises and the Buffalo 
Joneses and the Mary Ellen Leases. (Prolonged cheering and 
merriment.) 

Now, my fellow-citizens, I would rather take the judgment of 
John Sherman on a financial proposition than the judgment of 
Mary Ellen Lease. (Great applause and laughter.) I would rather, 
on a profound constitutional or financial question, follow the lead- 
ership of Benjamin Harrison than "Pitchfork" Tillman. (Con- 
tinued laughter and applause.) I would rather trust Governor 
Bushnell than Governor Hogg (cheering), no matter how fat he may 
be. (Continued cheering.) And I would rather follow the leader- 
ership of the gallant Governor McKinlcy (long continued cheering), 
with all these great representatives of sound money, sound protec- 
tion, sound patriotism and sound everything else supporting him, 
than "the boy orator of the Platte" with such people controlling 
him. (More cheering and applause.) 

Now, my fellow-citizens, don't you think, just on the face of the 
case, that the issue ought to be decided in our favor? (Continued 
applause.) Well, I think so. 

And yet I am going to talk with you about this issue a little bit^ 
not very long. It is ])retty warm here this afternoon. (Voices of 
"Go on.") Well, I will. You are not done with me yet. I am 
going to talk witli you about that issue for a little while, notwith- 
standing what has been so well said by Senator Sherman, I want 
to talk to you about it in the first place to the end that we may 
understand just what that issue is; and I am a little bit particular 
about that because I read a day or two ago — and it took me a day 
or two to do it — the speech made by "the boy orator of the Platte" 
when he was notified in New York. It occupied eight columns in 



8 

the Cincinnati Enquirer, close print. I read every word of it, and 
when I got done Avith it I thought I knew why he was called ''the 
boy orator of the Platte." Geography tells us that the Platte is a 
very peculiar river. They say it is a thousand miles long and only 
six inches deep. (Long continued laughter and cheering.) 

As I closed the reading of it I had another thought about him. 
I thought "Mr. Bryan made himself by one speech, and now 
he has unmade himself by one speech." (Applause.) No man 
will ever be made president of the United States upon that speech. 
(Renewed applause.) 

What is the nature of this case? There is a great effort being 
made to create the impression that the Republican party has changed 
its position in regard to this matter. That is not true. The Repub- 
lican party has not changed. (Cheering.) It is more explicit in 
its declarations this year than ever before, because the circum- 
stances Avere such as to require a more explicit declaration; but the 
Republican party has delared this year for exactly the same things 
it declared for in 1892. I know; I was there; I helped to make both 
platforms. (Applause.) Senator Teller was there, too, both times. 
He came, in 1892, before the committee on resolutions, demanding 
that we insert in our platform a declaration for free silver. "We 
said "No." We said, "We believe in bimetalism, in the sense that 
both gold and silver shall be used as standard money, and in favor 
of an international monetary conference to bring that about, but 
the Republican party does not believe in single silver standard 
monometalism, and we are, therefore, against your free silver prop- 
osition. (Applause.) We refused to give him his declaration. He 
did not expect to get it when he asked for it, and he was not sur- 
prised when Ave refused it. I knoAv he Avas not, because he told me 
he Avas not. 

Four years passed. I Avas again on that committee. So Avas he. 
We assembled to prepare a plank upon the financial, as upon every 
other question. He came before us Avith another demand for free 
silver. We ansAvered him in 1896 as Ave had ansAvered him in 
1892, but Senator Teller said, "Unless you give me Avhat I ask, free 
silver, I Avill bolt this convention and the Republican party." We 
said to Senator Teller that Ave appreciated his high character; Ave 
appreciated his good standing in years gone by as a Republican; Ave 
^dmired his alnfity; avc loved him as Ave loved all Avho had served 
the cause of Republicanism in the days gone by, and Avere therefore 
sorry to see him go; but Avhen it came to the question of haA'ing a 
sound currency for the American people to do business Avith, or 
having the Rei)ubliean i)arty get along Avithout the services of the 
distinguished senator from Colorado, Ave could only say, "Goodby, 
Senator Teller." (Applause.) 

Our declaration in 1892 and our declaration in 1896 are both 
declarations in favor, as I said a minute ago, of bimetalism, Avhen 
you can have it, and Ave think Ave can have it by an international 
agreement, but declarations in favor of maintaining, until then, the 



>^ o 



existing gold standard, and not being allowed to be driven to a 
silver standard. 

Now, what is the policy that we have been having? That is the 
policy that wo have been having for 23 years. Senator Sherman 
has been telling you how we have maintained gold and silver at a 
parity. Mr. Bryan seemed to think he ought to say something 
on that point; and he stated in that speech made in Madison 
Square garden, to which I have referred, that we liave been able to 
maintain silver dollars coined in the ratio of 16 to 1, at par with 
gold because the silver dollars are a legal tender. That is not the 
reason at all. The reason silver dollars are maintained at par with 
gold is because silver dollars, and every other form of United States 
money, are redeemable in gold. (Applause.) I saw that they were 
selling Mexican dollars on the streets today, and I thought I would 
like to see them. I do not want to palm any of them off on any- 
body, but I sent down and got a couple of them and I have them 
here. There are two Mexican dollars (exhibiting same) ; I bought 
them for one United States silver dollar. There are six grains 
more of pure silver in each of these Mexican dollars than there are 
in this one United States silver dollar. These Mexican dollars 
down in Mexico are a legal tender. They are worth down in 
Mexico, where they are a legal tender, just what they are worth up 
here in the United States. You can buy in the City of Mexico 
with one of our silver dollars two Mexican dollars — or practically 
that, a few cents difference. Why is it? Is it because the Mexican 
dollars are legal tender? No; it is because the Mexican dollar has 
no redeemer. (Great laughter and applause.) When you get the 
Mexican dollar you are at the end of your business transaction. 
That is money. That is the highest money they have in circula- 
tion. But when you get the silver dollar of the United States, you 
find it worth a dollar in gold, because if you want the gold all you 
have got to do is to ask for it. That is all you ever had to do under 
Republican rule. 

How is it, this dollar is made redeemable in gold? -Not by ex- 
press declaration. But by the declaration which Senator Shernum 
read to you and similar declarations. A declaration that pledges 
the government of the United States to maintain the parity of gold 
and silver dollars. How can you maintain that parity? Only by 
at all times being willing and able to pay out gold for silver to any- 
body who wants it. 

■ Now, I have some other money here. (A voice, "You are lucky.'") 
Yes, I am lucky. There is a one dollar bill (exhibiting same.) 
That is a certificate that somebody has deposited one silver dollar 
in the vaults of the United States treasury at Washington ancl he 
can have it liack again whenever somebody brings that paper. That 
is not a legal-tender. I suppose, therefore, according ti> Mr. Bryan, 
we ought to find this representing the intrinsic value of the silver. 
He savs the silver dollar is as good as gold because it is a legal ten- 
der. 'Will somebody explain to me, who accepts his announce- 
ment, why this silver certificate, which is not a legal tender, should 



r^ 



10 

be worth jast as much as that silver dollar, or a gold dollar, or any 
other dollar that the mints of the United States ever put forth? 
There is only one answer to it, and a man does not have to live in 
the country of the Platte to understand what it is either. The an- 
swer is that it is the policy of the government of the United States 
and the congress of the United States to put forth its pledge to 
maintain that policy ; to keep every dollar of its money, whether 
silver or paper, at par with gold, and everybody knows you can 
have the gold for it. That is why it is. 

Now, has this been a good policy or not? I have other pieces of | 
money here representing the same thing. We have, you know, six , 
different kinds of paper money. I do not know whether you knew 
it or not, I did not know it until I counted them and I do not ex-' 
pect you did. You did not know it because you have never taken 
the trouble to find out because you knew the general fact and were 
satisfied with it that no money, whether it was a national bank 
note, a greenback note, a silver certificate, a gold certificate or a 
treasury certificate, no matter whether it be made legal tender by 
law or not, it is the money you know, of the United States ot 
America, and behind which this great and powerful government of 
ours stands, and you know that our government has given you its 
pledge that you can have the gold for it whenever you want it. 
And, therefore, Avhen I pay you with a silver certificate you do not 
look at it ; or when I pay you with a gold certificate, you do not 
look at it. You do not know whether it is gold or silver you are 
getting. You do not stop to inquire whether it is a national bank 
note, but you take it. You are glad to get it. You will take it 
inside out, upside down or in any Avay, just so you get it. (Con- 
tinued cheering.) 

That is true because it has been our policy and we have stead- 
fastly and successfully pursued it, of maintaining all our money at 
par with gold. 

And now, what about the gold? It does not have to have any 
redeemer, does it? The government does not have to say it will 
redeem the gold dollar. All the government does with respect to 
it is to say — this is a dollar, or ten dollars, or twenty dollars, or 
whatever the denomination may be. It simply certifies as it comes 
from the mint that it possesses the requisite amount of gold to be 
named as it names it, and the gold does all the rest. It will go 
anywhere in this country; anywhere all over the world, and it is 
worth just as much in one country as it is in another. And if you 
want to put it under a hammer and hammer off" the eagle, and 
hammer off the inscriptions upon it and pound it up into a rolled 
ball of bullion, it would still be worth just as much anywhere in 
this country as it was with that certificate upon it, and worth just 
as much in China, Japan or Europe or any other country. Nobody 
has to guarantee it. 

Now, my fellow-citizens, has it or not been wise that Ave have 
pursued this policy? Haven't you been proud of the currency of 
the United States during all these past years? Hasn't it been the 






pride of every patriotic American citizen that as our gold would 
travel around the globe, so too, would every dollar of our paper 
money, being redeemable in gold, travel everywhere and be every- 
-vvhere honored at its face? Every American has been proud of it. 
Every business man has profited by it. Every laboring man has de- 
rived benetit from it. We have had a stable currency. As Senator 
vSherman has pointed out, we have had an abundant currency. 
There has not been any trouble with it until during the last two 
or three years. Until Mr. Cleveland came into power the second 
time, you did not hear any complaint about our money, did you? 
You did not hear of any 'trouble with the gold reserve. All this 
trouble has arisen since then. Why? Simply because, as every 
intelligent man knows, they adopted a policy of free trade as con- 
tra-distinguished to a protective tariff policy, and the first result 
■was the paralysis of business and the second result Avas deficient 
revenues to the government. When people see that a government 
takes in less money than it has to pay out, they begin to get 
distrustful of it. If 'they have anything' that calls for gold, they 
begin to present it and demand gold. So it is with an individual. 
If the richest farmer in Franklin county should suddenly enter 
upon an unfortunate kind of life, develop dissipated habits, spend 
more than he makes, his neighbors would soon find him out ; they 
thev would soon begin to lose confidence in him. If any of them 
bad his notes of hand, you Avould find them calling upon him to 
secure payment while he still had enough left to pay with. So it 
is with a government. When the creditors of this nation saw the 
Democratic party in power and saw the kind of a policy it entered 
upon and saw its results, they got uneasy; they commenced 
demanding payment, and then you heard for the first time that 
there was a gold reserve, and, as the singer said awhile ago, it was 
" tuml)ling down," and soon bonds had to be issued. 

Now, niy fellow-citizens, the best remedy fur this whole trouble 
is to put tiie Republican party back in power; preserve the policy 
of a protective tariff; reinaugurate the policy of reciprocity, and 
give to the American people an economic administration under 
which the government would have enough revenue to live and 
everybody engaged in ])usiness in this country and every laborer in 
the country can find something to do. (Prolonged applause.) 

I will n()t, in view of what has been said to you by Senator Sher- 
man, press upon your time to pursue the subject longer. Before I 
quit, however, let me say one word to the farmers who may be here 
represented. As I said "nwliile ago, they have been having a hard 
time of it. I was brought u]) on a farm. I know something about 
that business. It has resulted in my keeping in pretty close touch 
with the farmers of this country; keeping pretty familiar with their 
situation, and I know with wliat dreadful results the experiences 
of the last three years have fallen upon them. Mr. Bryan and 
those who ask vou to vote in his support are going about over the 
country to tellyou that the trouble to the fiirmers is because silver 
has been demonetized. Let me sav to vou, mv agricultural friends. 



12 

that the trouble with the farmers is because their markets have been 
demonetized. (Great applause.) You did not have any trouble in 
1892 and before that, did you? (Renewed applause and cries of 
•'Not a bit.") Everybody went to work. We had a home market 
that consumed 95 per cent, of all that we could raise. In an evil 
hour the American people were misled. They put the Democratic 
party into power pledged to a free trade policy. They were afraid 
after they got into power to give it to us in all its fullness, but they 
did give us in lieu of the McKinley tariff what is called the Wilson- 
Gorman tariff, and that is a monstrosity. I might talk about it in 
many respects, but let me tell you in a word what it has done for 
the farmers of this country. 

The Wilson-Gorman law not only gave us lower duties on all 
imports, agricultural as well as otherwise, but it also destroyed all 
of our reciprocity treaties, under which we were rapidly 
increasing our foreign trade when Mr. Cleveland came in. What 
is the result of it? Take last year and compare it with the year 
before and you will find that we sold abroad of agricultural products 
in round numbers $150,000,000 less than under the last year of the 
McKinley law. And last year, under the Wilson-Gorman 
bill, in round numbers there were imported into this coun- 
try to be sold here in competition Avith our farmers, agri- 
cultural products amounting in the aggregate to more than 
$68,000,000. In round numbers, as result of this experiment of a 
Democratic administration, the farmers have been made to feel the 
folly of free trade to the extent of §250,000,000 in the markets for 
their products. (More applause.) That is not all. That is what 
it cost us abroad. Who can tell Avhat it has cost us at home? 
Ninety-five per cent, of our markets were at home, but our own 
people are out of work largely, and our own people, who are at 
work, are commanding loAver wages. There are less people to buy. 
The farmer feels it. A man cannot buy much oats or feel his oats 
much, who hasn't anything at all jn his pockets. (Laughter and 
cheering.) And so it is that with our market curtailed in our for- 
eign trade to the extent of $250,000,000, and our markets at home 
curtailed to the extent of far more than that, and nobody can tell 
how much, the farmer is having a hard time. What does the farmer 
want? Docs he want a cheap dollar? No; God knows that is not 
what the farmer wants. (Great applause.) The farmer Avants a good 
market in which he can sell everything he raises for a good dollar; 
that is what he wants. (Renewed applause.) When the farmer 
gets a good market and gets a good demand and gets that which is 
equal to gold for what he has to sell, then the face of the farmer will 
be wreathed with smiles once more. (Cheering.) 

How are you going to get it? Do you think you will ever get it 
under Bryan? Do you think the "boy orator of the Platte" 
would every get down to such a plain business-like matter as tariff 
on wool and other things the farmer is interested in ? (Cheering 
and laughter.) There is not much latitude for oratory and rhetoric 
there. (Renewed laughter.) 



13 

What you ^v.int to do, my foUow-citizcns, who nrp ongaged in 
agricultural pursuits is to remember that through nil the years of 
, the present generation you have never trusted Repuhlican ])olicies 
in vain. (Continued cheering.) No matter whether the questions 
pertained to the preservation of the Union and the constitution ;to 
liuman liberty ; to equality of right as to suffrage or whether they 
have related to our economic conditions, tlie Roiniblican jiarty has 
ever bt.'cn on the side of right, and the pros^jcrity and glory you 
liave enjoyed in consequence are greater and grander than any 
language can describe. (Great applause.) 

Now it is too hot to talk to you any longer. I tell you, my 
fellow-citizens, this thing of entrusting our national aftairs to a 
political party for four years is something that is very serious. 
(Ai)plause and a voice, "We see it now.") We did not see it before, 
did we ? TJiat is true. 

That reminds me that a few years ago when the Republican 
party had been in power for 25 years^ and when everything was 
running so smoothly you scarcely knew we had a government and 
there was so much jn-osperity that the people did not like to be 
bothered with voting, even once in four years, they commenced 
talking about changing the constitution and electing the presidents 
of the United States fur eight years. No one is proposing that now 
is there? (Great laughter and cheering.) We now appreciate the 
the wisdom of the fathers in limiting the executive term to four 
years. (Renewed laughter and applause.) It is a serious matter, 
as we have learned. It requires great ability to administer the af- 
fairs of a nation of 70,000,000. Do you tliink this Populistic end 
of the Democratic party is able to do it? (Great laughter and 
applause.) They failed to do it, the Democrats did, when they 
had the advantage of all the brains and ability and patriotism that 
have now deserted them to vote for McKinlev. 

I take it, there is not a man here Avho would entrust that branch 
of the Democratic party with the administration of our affairs of 
government without at least distrust; and 1 think lam able to say, 
without successful contradiction, that there is not a man here, 
Democrat or Republican, who would have the slightest concern 
but that everything national would ])o administered ]xitriotically 
and to our satisfaction if ^\'illiam McKinley should be called to 
the Whitehouse. (Long continued applause.) Then if you have 
distrusted about one and do not have distrust about the other, 
Avhy make me suffer in the flesh by standing here any longer? 
(Laughter and a])])lause.) 

Ex-Governor McKinley represents in liis life, in liis record, in 
his ambitions, all that is best and greatest and grandest in Ameri- 
can history for the last forty years. (Prolonged cheering.) A sol- 
dier, a congressman, a governor! What a great man he will be 
four years from now when he has been president of the L'nited 
States a term! (Continued cheering.) 

Ohio has a special duty resting upon her with respect to him. 
We presented him to the Republicans of this nation. We vouched 



14 

for him — though that was hardly necessary. He had "been doing^ 
business in the presence of and for the American people, and -with 
their approval for a quarter of a century. It was not necessary for 
anybody to stand behind him like gold stands behind silver. 
(Laughter and cheering.) He passed before that convention and 
he passes now, since the convention, at par all over this country 
and everywhere — except in other countries. (More applause and 
laughter.) He is not very popular over in England. They do not 
think much of him, I understand, in Germany or France; but as a 
distinguisKed Democrat once said of Grover Cleveland: " We love 
Governor McKinley for the enemies of that character which he has 
made." He is not appreciated abroad because his life has been 
devoted to the defense of American institutions, American labor, 
and the upbuilding of American prosperity for all classes of Amer- 
ican people. He believes in developing our own resources; he 
believes in giving employment to our own labor; he believes the 
American farmer should have his own market; that if he has wheat 
or corn to sell he ought to be able to find somebody in the next 
town who is working at some kind of manufacturing or some other 
sort of pursuit, and who must depend upon the farmer for what he 
eats; somebody who is getting good wages. That is Governor Mc- 
Kinley's policy. It has been a grand one. Will we continue it? 
(Great applause and cries of "Yes.") 

Yes, we will. I do not believe there can bo nny question. But 
in heaven's name, let there be no doubt about what Ohio shall do. 
We gave Governor Bushnell last year 92.000 majority. That was 
an off year. (Laughter and applause.) Let us make it this year 
at least 200,000 and thereby show not only our appreciation of 
America, American institutions, American integrity, American 
honor in our finances, our tariff, our reciprocity and every other 
system and agency of government. (Great applause.) 



12-/1/: 



SPEECHES 



OF SENATORS J. B. 



FORAKER 



AND M. A. 



HANNA, 



AT BURTON, OHIO, 



September ii, 1897. 




LAfefet> 



i/, 



speech of Senator J. B. Foraker. 



Mr. Chairman and Fellow Citizens: — The election in Ohio 
this year is of national character and importance. The Governor- 
ship, the Legislature and a United States Senatorship depend upon 
the result. These are all-important considerations, but more 
important still in some respects is the fact that on our action in 
November depends the question Avhether Ohio, the home of our 
honored President, intends to stand by and support him in this. 
the first year of his administration 

GOVERNOR BUSHNELL. 

If nothing more were involved than the election of Governor 
Bushnell, it would be the duty of every man in Ohio who calls 
himself a Republican to rally to his support. We have had many 
distinguished governors, but we have never had one more efficient 
in time of peace than he has shown himself to be. His splendid 
.[ualities as a man, his noble, generous-hearted nature, have long 
been known to the people of Ohio of all parties. His fine business 
capacities and splendid executive ability have enabled him to do 
for the people of the state a better service in some respects than any 
other governor has been able to render in recent years. Not since 
Governor Foster went out of office have the finances of this groat, 
rich commonwealth been in a satisfactory, or even credital)le, 
condition until now. Their present improved and splendid con- 
dition is due to Governor Bushnell more than any other man, for 
it was under his guiding and directing judgment that the legislation 
was put upon the statute books which has enabled our state treasurj' 
to overcome deficits, do away with advanced drafts and enjoy an 
income commensurate Avith our public expenditures; and all this, 
notwithstanding largely increased public demands. 

REVENUES AND BURDENS. 

But, what is better still, is the fact that these increased revenues 
have been provided without any increased demand upon the 
taxable physical property of the state. 'Our public burdens are 



heavier, and our public revenues are necessarily largely increased 
to meet these burdens and pay off these deficiencies, and yet all 
this has been accomplished without adding a dollar to the taxes on 
the farms and other property of the state. It has been accom- 
plished by legislation that has wisely not only placed these burdens 
on the quasi public franchises of the state, but has at the same time 
so equally distributed them as to lighten the load and make it 
easily borne. It can be safely said that, while our tax system is 
not by any means perfect, yet it is far more satisfactory and more 
just in its operation than it has ever before been at any time in the 
history of our state. 

But Governor Bushnell's wise conduct of public affairs has been 
felt not only with respect to our state financial system, but it has in 
a marked degree been beneficial to our public institutions. The Ohio 
Penitentiary, which cost the state many thousands of dollars 
annually for quite a period, has been made by Governor Bushnell 
self-sustaining and profit bearing. In no state Hospital, Asylum 
or other benevolent institution has there been during his adminis- 
tration any scandal or any deficiency of any sort measured by any 
standard hitherto obtained under the administration of any gov- 
ernor of Ohio. And so it is, therefore, if nothing more were 
involved at the approaching election than merely the selection of a 
chief executive, it would be our duty to ourselves as well as to our 
candidate to overwhelmingly re-elect Governor Bushnell to that 
position. 

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR JONES. 

But the state ticket only commences with Governor 'Bushnell. 
Associated with him for re-election is Lieutenant Governor Asa 
W. Jones, and all that has been said of Governor Bushnell in his \ 
praise and eulogy as a man, a Republican and an official, may with 
equal propriety be said of liim. He has filled the office of presiding 
ofl^cer of the Senate with as much dignity and ability as any man 
has ever displayed in that position; and associated with these two 
leaders of the ticket are candidates of the highest merit, entitled to 
the confidence, respect and support of all members of their party. 

THE LEGISLATURE. 

The legislative body is always of great importance in any state, 
but particularly so in the state of Ohio. We have a population of 
more than four millions of people. Our industries are of the most 
varied character. We have agriculture, mining, manufacture and 






X / 



7 



commerce, represented by almost every kind of business that can 
be imagined. It requires ability, integrity, zeal and fidelity to 
satisfactorily legislate for all these interests. 

In state, as in national legislation, the Republican party has 
ever proven itself to be more capable of responding to the people's 
■wishes and promoting the people's interests. They seem to have 
better business capacity. But, not alone are state interests to be 
affected by the political complexion of the next legislature. It will 
directly afi'ect our national legislation, and in this way involve 
national policies and national interests. The first great step that 
would be taken by a Democratic legislature, if one should be chosen 
in Ohio next November, would be to enact a law redistricting the 
state of Ohio for representation in the Congress of the United States. 
^\'e now have six Democratic districts and fifteen Republican dis- 
tricts. It is morally certain that, if a Democratic legislature should 
be chosen, our next delegation from Ohio to the national house of 
representatives would, as a result, stand practically the reverse of 
what it now is, or as nearly so as Democratic legislation could make 
it, so that whether or not we shall have a Republican legislature 
involves the question whether or not we shall have, in the next 
national house of representatives, six or eight Republicans and a 
dozen or fifteen Democratic congressmen, instead of the representa- 
tion we now have. 

Another result of a Democratic legislature would be the selection 
of some Dem.ocrat for the place now held by Senator Marcus A. 
Hanna; and that would be a loss that must not in any event be 
.^uttered. In the first place because the Republican party is already 
in the minority in the United States Senate. There are now 
eighty-eight members of that body. There is one vacancy from 
Mississippi that will be filled l>y a Democrat, and one vacancy from 
Oregon that will probably be filled by a Republican. Of these 
eighty-eight members only forty-three are Republicans. The 
Democrats, Populists and Free-Silver Republicans thus have the 
control of that body. What we want is not to lose a Senator from 
Ohio, but to hold our own in Ohio and gain enough Senators from 
other states as they hold Senatorial elections, to give us a majority 
that will put the Senate, as well as the House, in harmony with 
the national administration. As the meml)ership now stands, on 
^very question that commands only Republican support, we are 
unable to act. A failure to choose a Republican legislature in 
Ohio would be a' defeat, not only for the Republicans of Ohio, but 



for the Republicans of the whole nation. There would be disap- 
pointment not only for us, but for all, from the President down to 
the last man in the ranks of the party that placed him in power. 
The country has a right to expect Republican success in Ohio this 
year; the President has a right to expect it. We must not disap- 
point them. 

SENATOR HANNA. 

But aside from the mere party and political features of the 
case, Senator Hanna is entitled to the honor of a ratification by the 
people of the endorsement which our state convention has already 
given him. His services to the party have been conspicuous. Not 
trained to political, party or public services, but simply a straight- 
forward, plain, blunt business man, he took up the work of support- 
ing President McKinley's candidacy for nomination as a labor of 
love and, triumphing over difficulties that would have been too 
much for men of less courage and determination, he won his first 
great national contest. In the campaign that followed he won the 
confidence and esteem of the whole country as a practical leader 
and party commander; so that when Governor Bushnell appointed 
him to the position he now holds, he took it with a national repu- 
tation, and Avith a consequent power for services to his party such 
as few men have ever enjoyed. 

He has been faithful in the use of this great influence and in 
the discharge of the duties of his office; and not only faithful, but 
efficient, and efficient in the highest degree. In the great work of 
framing and passing the tariff bill, which so distinguished the 
work of the extra session of congress, no man, not on the finance 
committee, did more than Senator Hanna to Avin the success that 
was achieved. I doubt if any other man not on the committee did 
.so much. He devoted himself with assiduity to the study of the 
various schedules; he listened with patience to the claims and 
appeals of all, and with rare good judgment aided the committee 
and the senate in reaching the just conclusions that were embodied 
in the measure. He may not be an orator, but he is a good, plain, 
straightforward talker and a sound thinker. He has not had long 
experience in political matters, but he is all the Aviser in a broad 
and varied business experience, that has brought him in contact 
with men, and prepared him for the duties of his place. There is 
the highest need for such men in the senate, and the action of the 
governor in appointing him, already approved by the state conven- 
tion, should now be indorsed by the people. The Republicans of 



V 



^'7 



Ohio must not be (lisuppointecl — the IJejuiblicans of the nation 
must not be disappointed — the Republicans of the senate must not 
bo disappointed, and the President of the United States must not 
l)e lUsappointed. See to it, therefore, wlu-n you go to the ballot- 
box, that you vote the whole ticket from the governor down to tlie 
last man on it, to the end that we may have a Republican execu- 
tive, a Republican legislature, and continue to have two Republican 
senators from Ohio. 

McKINLEY'S ADMINISTRATION. 

But, as I have already said, there is another feature of this 
election that we must not lose sight of; whether we would have it 
so or not, the truth is that the vote of Ohio next November will be 
taken and received everywhere as an expression by the people of 
Ohio of their approval or disapproval of President McKinley's 
administration. We know President ]McKinley, we know him as a 
man, and we know him as a Republican. We know him as a 
congressman, and we know liim as our governor, and for more than 
six months we have known him as the President of the United 
States. We know his history, we know his promises, and we know 
his performances. Every promise embodied in the national Re])ub- 
lican platform of 1896 has been kept by him with religious fidelity. 
As a result, confidence has been restored to the business world, and 
prosperity is scattering its blessings throughout all the land. 
Everybody knows that he is wise, conservative, patriotic and faith- 
ful. When he entered upon his official term he did not lose one 
moment in taking up the great Avork to which he had been called. 
The congress was called in extraordinary session, and before five 
months had passed, after his inauguration, one of the greatest 
})olitical achievements in the partisan legislation of the last thirty 
years had been accomplished. A new tariff bill framed on pro- 
tection lines was enacted and put into operation, and already we 
have a complete answer to all the arguments made against him in 
the campaign of 1896. 

Business is everywhere reviving, the furnaces have again been 
lighted, the forges are flaming, the factories are running. We seQ 
i louds of smoke by day and pillars of fire by night. Labor has V)een 
again called to remunerative employment, and in the home where 
want and penury were felt, there is again the happiness that comes 
from industrious labor, and the promi.se of i)lenty that follows upon 
employment. The railroads of the country are again t^ixed to their 
uttermost with the passenger and freight traffic they are called upon 



y^ 



8 

to accommodate, and before this time next year we will again have 
reached the high standard of activity, employment and prosperity 
that reigned universally in 1892. 

For four long years succeeding the re-election of Grover Cleve- 
land the people of the United States were painfully advised that 
they had made a great mistake. They promised themselves to 
correct this in 1896. When they went to the ballot-box in that 
year it was not a question of the man, not a question of theories, 
but the great paramount question was, which of the candidates and 
policies proposed could most surely be relied upon to restore happi- 
ness, industrial activity and prosperity to the country. After one 
of the most thorough debates ever known in American politics, 
William McKinley and the pledges he represented triumphed. 

Before the first year of McKinley's administration is ended the 
wisdom of the people in making that choice has been vindicated. 
What excuse is there for any man who voted for McKinley last 
year to vote against his administration this year? There is abso- 
lutely none. We should, therefore, without stopping to consider 
details, especially here in Ohio, one of the great central common- 
wealths of the Union and the home of the president, give to his 
administration and to his policies an emphatic approval, and to 
him and his great and arduous labors an earnest vindication and 
encouragement to go forward. The way to do this is to vote for 
that which he represents, and the only way to vote for that which 
he represents is to vote for Bushnell and Jones, your legislative 
candidates and the whole Republican ticket. 

CREDIT FOR PROSPERITY. 

But our Democratic friends say President McKinley and his 
administration are not entitled to credit for the prosperity which they 
concede the country is enjoying. They point in support of this claim 
to the fact that there is a great shortage of wheat in other countries 
that have heretofore been our competitors in the wheat markets of 
the workl. They tell us it is an act of God and not of the Republi- 
can party that wheat is worth $1 a bushel. There are a good many 
answers to this suggestion. In the first place it seems a little singu- 
lar, if it is nothing more than an accident, that the same kind of 
an accident should attend the Republican party whenever it is 
dominant in national affairs; somewhat singular that whenever the 
Democratic party comes into power there should at once develop 
and spread over the whole business country a kind of business chill 
that leads to depression, suspension of business enterprises, bank- 



^^/ 



ruptcy, idleness, demoralization, and consequent hunger, unrest 
and dissatisfaction — singular that such conditions should doggedly 
obtain until the Democratic party is turned out of power and the 
Republican party restored; and that immediately following such a 
political change there should be a revival of business and a return 
of prosperity. 

Again, whatever may be the truth as to the effect on the price 
of wheat, of short crops abroad, what is to be said in answer to the 
statement that, coincident with the advance in the price of wheat, 
there is a similar and almost as great an advance in the price of 
wool, and sheep, and corn, and rye, and oats, and barley, and 
potatoes, and tobacco, and horses, and hogs, and cattle, and every 
other kind of a product in which the farmer is interested. Has 
anybody heard of a short crop of sheep in Australia or the Argen- 
tina; of a short crop of any. of the other products I have named? 
If not, there must be some other reason than a short wheat crop 
abroad for these increasing prices. 

QUESTIONS EASILY ANSWERED. 

But why, again, are our railroads taxed to the full extent of 
their capacity? Is there any short crop of railroads in Europe, or 
South America, or Mexico, or Asia, or Africa? Why are our facto- 
ries, and mills, and foundries, and machine shops all ablaze from 
morning to night, and from night until morning? Why are our 
armies of tramps, heretofore led by theCoxeys on Washington, now 
marching in solid phalanx to the fiictories, and the mills, and the 
furnaces, there to sell their labor in new-found markets? I need 
not dwell upon this. Every man who has sea'^e enough to know 
anything, knows that the general conditions which obtain in busi- 
ness this year are, Avithout regard to short crops, far better than they 
were last year. Everybody knows that something has occurred to 
give the American people confidence to do business, to emi)loy 
labor, and to invest capital; and everybody knows, who is free from 
bias and prejudice, that it is due to the fact that the people of this 
country know that a party is again in power that lias capacity to 
conduct the affairs of this country, and patriotism enough to con- 
duct them according to its best interests. Everybody knows that 
the election of McKinley made certain our economic condition, 
both for the production of wealth and as to the character of money 
with which to do business. The result is a signal triumph for the 
protective tariff policy inaugurated by the Republican party when 
it came into power in 1861, and continued with unexampled bless- 



i^ 



yy 



10 



ings and benefit to all classes of our people until the Republican 
party went out of power at the close of President Harrison's admin- 
istration. Everybody knows that so long as the Republican party 
remains in power the interests of this country, our labor, our 
capital, our resources, our opportunities will be considered first and 
foremost above those of every other country upon the face of the 
globe; and everybody knows that so long as this policy shall con- 
tinue, there will be opportunities to labor and as a result there will 
be a home market for our farmers and safe investments for our 
capital. And everybody knows, furthermore, that there will not 
only be safe investments for capital and abundant opportunities 
for labor, but that the American people will have a sound and 
stable currency with which to do business^among themselves and 
with the other nations of the world. It is this confidence and this 
security as to our tariff policy and our currency that constitute 
the life, spirit and blood of the nation. 

Ohio could not do anything more against her own interest, or 
speak in greater hostility to the fair name, the good credit, and the 
great prosperity Ave are entering upon, than to vote against our 
national administration next November. Such a vote would 
destroy confidence. It would encourage the free trader and the free 
silverite, the Populist, and every other kind of heterogenous 
element, which, banded together, constituted the support of Wil- 
liam J. Bryan in 1896, and this should be sufficient to secure a 
triumphant Republican victory. 



X 



speech of Senator M. A. Hanna. 



Mr. Chairman and Fellow Citizens: — T am glad to have the 
oi)portunity t(i be one of your invited guests at this opening meet- 
ing of the campaign. It might be attributed to me that my self- 
interest in this campaign should be the dominant reason for my 
being here. My reason, as my honorable colleague has done me the 
credit to say, for leaving business which has engaged me all my 
life, to take part in public affairs, was from no selfish motive. 

I have been connected with the business affairs of this State 
all my life. Born in Ohio, educated in Ohio, my life's work has 
been in Ohio. In the employment of my energies, and with what 
capital I could command, I have assisted in building up the man- 
ufacturing industries of my native State. I can see in the light of 
experience the danger that threatens our beloved country. I saw 
the opportunity. I saw the man. I thouglit I saw what was in 
the hearts of the American people. 

I determined to give myself to the cause of my friend McKin- 
ley. Not only because he Avas my friend — that would have been 
enough to have commanded all my energies — but I had known him 
from the day he entered public life. I had been close to his side. 
I had known the workings of his mind. I knew the promptings of 
his heart, and I knew that he was a patriot. I believed tiiat such 
a man was called upon to dispel the calamity which threatened our 
Nation, and to that cause — my country's cause — I gave my time 
and nearly my life. Therefore, I stand before this audience today, 
not as a candidate for the United States Senate, but as a Repub- 
lican to plead with you, not only as Republicans, but as patriotic 
citizens, to stand by this Adnf^istratinn. 

The last campaign, as Senator Foraker stated, was one of the 
most important political battles that was ever fought. Thank God, 
I had the privilege to be one of its defenders. Thank God that Ohio 



12 

furnished so many energetic Republican orators an^ workers who 
had the strength, and used it in supporting the werk of our com- 
mittee. " 

We were called upon at the threshold of the campaign to 
change the issue. When McKinley was nominated at St. Louis it 
was understood and believed that the great industrial question 
should be the issue. I never met a Democrat who did not say: 
" Our policy has been a failure, and the Republican party cannot 
educate now on that issue." But at the Chicago convention, con- 
trolled, not by Jeffersonian Democrats but by Bryanism, free trade- 
ism and all other isms that could be gathered together under the 
red flag, were flaunted before the countrv. 

The statement was made to the American people that they 
must forsake the traditions of their forefathers and adopt the isms 
of anarchy and socialism in order that this new fad and its consti- . 
tuted leader, W. J. Bryan, should be placed in control of the gov 
ernment. 

I will not pursue in detail that campaign. You know the re-. 
suits. You know that some of our friends were misled by the 
sophistries of their leaders into believing that free coinage of silver 
would bring better times to this country. 

The best minds of the country volunteered their services, gave 
their time and experience to that educational work which was such 
a feature of the campaign; so that every man who could read and 
understand, well knew before the campaign closed that he had been 
mistaken. 

Now, what has been the result of that victory ? Senator For- 
aker has eloquently told you. He has left nothing for me to say, 
save one important thing. He has told you of the eifort I made in 
helping to frame that tariff law, and to pass it through the Senate ; 
but he has not told you that he stood as the leader of Ohio's inter- 
ests in the tariff fight. He was my file leader, and I undertook to 
give him all the support that lay in my power with my limited ex- 
perience as a politician. It was a great fight. It was a great vic- 
tory. However, tlie bill was passed and is now a law, and I pre- 
dict in this connection that two decades will pass before any party 
dare attack us on it. 

The Rejiublican party is responsible through that measure for 
bringing back prosperity. I know, and all business men know, that 
the laws of commerce are just as inviolable as the laws of nature, 
and when any party undertakes an infringement of those laws the 
result that follows must rest upon it, and disaster will be the result. 



Ill 



13 

The cry was made in the last- campaign by ^Ir. Bryan himself, 
that he found that silver and wheat had kept company. He has 
found that Providence, " or .some other fellow," as he expressed it, 
has undermined his arguments. He turned class against class and 
created a sentiment of communism and anarchy which we should 
be as free from in this country as from a pestilence. 

And now what does he say: "That the reason silver and 
wheat are still on diverging lines is because of the failure abroad of 
the crops ; " that, anyway, there are only a few wheat raising States 
that are affected by this operation of advance in Avheat. I might 
say in this connection that there are still fewer States that are in- 
terested in the price of silver. 

We want a continuation of the present conditions, except we 
want them better. The time will soon come when the Democratic 
sheets will announce the fact that this improvement is still going 
on ; that our factories are opening ; that work is everywhere offered 
to the unemployed. That time is fast approaching, and soon will 
be fulfilled. We will not have permanent prosperity, nor satisfac- 
tory prosperity, until labor is employed — well employed. 

And now, insomuch as I am talked of as a candidate for the 
United States Senate, I want to be pardoned for indulging in a per- 
sonality. During the last campaign it was charged upon me as 
chairman of the National Committees, told upon the stump, reiter- 
ated ui)on the platform, and filtered through the filthy newspapers, 
that I, as an employer of labor, was unworthy and unjust. In other 
words, my tognomen, in political circles on the other side, was that 
of being a "labor crusher." Well, where I live, in my own city — 
among the men who work for me — I do not need to make answer 
to any sucli charges. But as this is the opening meeting of the 
campaign, I want to say in this presence that these charges are false. 

I have been, in the ramifications of my business, a large 
employer of labor; but I believe I can state it as a fact that I 
was the first man in the State of Ohio to recognize organized labor; 
and from that day to this I have never refused or declined to recog- 
nize it. I believe that my pros})erity should be theirs, and that I 
cannot be prosperous without tlieir co-operation ; and if my success, 
either in private or public life, dei)ends upon such charges as have 
been made during the last campaign to prejudice against me the 
laboring men of this country, I leave my cause in their hands. 

Now, I want to say one word in corroboration of what has been 
said by my senior colleague in regard to the management of our 
State affairs. I do not know but that Gov. Asa S. Bushnell's record 



L 



14 

is one of the considerations that has encouraged me to enter public 
life. In private life, like myself, he was a plain business man, 
educated to business, devoting his whole time to business. Is not 
the management of State affairs business ? And, therefore, I 
endorse what Senator Foraker has justly stated, that we have never 
had in the history of our State, since I knew anything about public 
affairs, a better Administration, or more satisfactory results, thaii 
under Governor Bushnell. 

I Avas going to say, when I arose, that I was glad that Senator 
Foraker had spoken so eloquently and had exhausted the whole | 
subject. I was simply going to arise and announce my presence, th^! t 
the people might see that I was better looking than my cartoons. 

Now, one thing more. Senator Foraker was good enough to 
pay me a very handsome tribute, and I want to say publicly that 
from the bottom of my heart I appreciate Avhat he said. I appreci- 
ate it because of the false statements which have been circulated \ 

4 

with the hope of creating dissensions. I want to say to this audience ^ 
that it will take more than John R. McLean and his Enquirer i 
to make a breach between Mr. Foraker and myself. | 

I know that Senator Foraker is too good a Republican, too 
great a man, to be influenced in political and public affairs by such 
nonsense. 

If there ever was an occasion when every Republican, of every 
faction, of every way of thinking, should be banded together vrith 
ties of duty and patriotism, that time has come. I believe that all 
Republicans in Ohio will fully appreciate and realize what is before 
them, and will rally around the old flag and elect Bushnell, Foraker 
— and Hanna, I hope. 



i 

I 



^ X 



THE OREGON SENATORIAL QUESTION. 



SPEECH 



OF 



IIOX. JOSEPH B.FORAKER, 



OF OHIO, 



IN THE 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1898. 



WASHINGXON. 

189S. 



7 



, > 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. JOSEPH B. FOEAKEE 



SENATOR FROM OREGON. 



The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution report? 

from the Committee on Privileges and Elections by Mr. Caffery 

on the 26th tiitimo, as follows: 

'R'^mlwd. That the Hon. Henry W. Corbett is not entitled to take his seat 
in this body as a Senator from the State of Oregon. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, the debate with respect to the 
seating of Mr. Corbett is already long jirotracted. It is not too 
much to say, perhaps, that every legitimate argument that can be 
presented on both sides has been presented to the Senate. Surely 
I am justified in saying, after the speech of the Senator from Wis- 
consin [Mr. SpoonerJ , that I might well be content to discharge 
my duty with the simple casting of my vote in favor of the seating 
of Mr. Corbett, as I shall cast it, for that speech was elaborate, 
masterl}'. and, to my mind, conclusive. 

Yet, Mr. President, I feel with respect to this matter as though 
I want to do something more than cast my vote. I want to at 
least briefly give the reasons why I do not intend to follow, as 
Senators have been insisting we should follow, the decision in the 
Mantle case. I do not intend to follow it because, in mj^ judg- 
ment, it was an erroneous decision. I think it was so regarded by 
the legal profession generally throughout the country at the time 
when that decision was made, for whether the Senariors who were 
then here and made that decision recognized the fact or not. it 
was, I think, generally thought throughout the country that the 
silver question had more to do with the making of that decision 
than legal principles. 

I think the fact that that decision was erroneous is recognized 
by the Senators who are speaking in opposition here now in this 
debate to the seating of Mr. Corbett when thej' make to us the 
elaborate argtiments that they have been making about the doc- 
trine of stare decisis. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to 
interrupt him? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. G ALLINGER. 1 wish to enter a disclaimer, so far as I am 
individually concerned, having voted against the seating of Mr. 
Mantle and proposing to vote against tlie seating of Mr. Corbett, 
that the silver (piestion had anything whatever to do with the vote 
I cast in the former case, or that anything else than a conviction 
of duty will lead me to cast a vote against the seating of Mr. Cor- 
bett in the present instance. So the Senator's criticism does not 
at least apply to one Senator who voted against the seating of Mr. 
Mantle. 

2 3072 



Mr. FORAKER. I ain glad to be interrupted bj^ the Senator 
from New Hampshire in the way I have been interrupted by him. 

Mr. PASC/O. 1 ask the Senator from Ohio to yield to me. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Ohio yield to 
the Senator trom Florida? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. PASCO. I wish to submit a similar disclaimer: and I think 
the Senator will find, if he examines the Record, that a very 
large number of those who are bimetallists and believe in the 
doctrine promul-^ated at the Chicago convention voted against 
theadmission of Mr. Mantle asaSenator. TheRECOUD will show 
that a very large percentage of the votes cast against Mr. Mantle 
were cast by those who supported Mr. Bryan for the Presidency. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am glad to be interrupted in this way also 
b}'' the Senator from Florida. I have never looked at the Record 
to see how Senators voted in the Mantle case, and therefore I 
could not have had the vote of any particular Senator in mind. I 
was only stating a fact, and. notwithstanding what has been said 
by the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Flor- 
ida, I repeat that throughout the country at the time when that 
decision was made the impression was that the silver question had 
a* great deal to do with it. I call attention to that fact, however, 
not for the purpose of criticising any Senator, but for the purpose 
of saying that this is not a case for the application of the doc- 
trine of stare decisis, for that doctrine is never applied to compel 
a court to follow an erroneous decision, except only where it af- 
fects a rule of property, or affects vested rights that have been 
acquired on the faith of the erroneous decision, or where, for some 
reason or other, it is contrary to public policy that the decision 
which was admittedly erroneous should be overturned by the re- 
viewing court. 

Now. what I want to say in that connection is this, Mr. President, 
and you will see the legitimacy of the argument, and see that I had 
it not in mind to criticise any Senator because of the vote he then 
cast. In the first place, you never invoke the doctrine of stare 
decisis except only where you concede that the former decision 
was erroneous. There is never any apiilication of it or any occa- 
sion to consider it except only in such a case as that. Therefore 
I have a right to assiime that all the Senators who have labored 
here to show us that this was a case for the application of the doc- 
trine of stare decisis concede that the decision in the Mantle case 
was erroneous, as in my opinion it was: and as I said, notwith- 
standing all that Senators may say as to their individual opinions 
at the time when they voted, the country generally thought it 
was, so far as I had any opportunity to observe or to learn from 
the discussions in the newspapers and otherwise. 

The people generally had the impression with respect to it that 
I have indirated, andl'or that reason. Mr. President, the decision 
in the Mantle case has never become a rule for the people of this 
country to be governed by in matters of this kind, and the de- 
cision in the Mantle case is one which can now be reversed, if it 
should be necessary for us to reverse it in seating Mr. Corbett, 
without affecting any question of pul)lic policy, without affecting 
any rule of i)roperty, without disturbing any vested rights. That 
is the point I want to make with resiiect to it. 

But, Mr. President, this is not a case for the application of that 
doctrine if otherwise the conditions were such as to make it ap- 
propriate to apply it. It is not a case of that kind, because the 

3072 



7/3 



decision in the Mantle case was not a juclicial decision, according 
to the authorities, as 1 understand them, and that doctrine is 
never applied except only by the courts, and with respect to former 
judicial decisions. They can not apply it with respect to any- 
thing else. 

It is true that the Constitution o^ the Unit?d States does pro- 
vide that the members of each House shall be the judge of the 
qualifications of those who are elected to me]nbership, and shall 
determine whether or not they shall be admitted to membership. 

Mr. PASCO. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me to interrupt 
him? 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PASCO. I think, after what he has said and what was said 
by the Senator from New Hampshire and myself, it would be only 
fair to give him the names of those who supported Mr. Bryan for 
the Presidency and who voted against the admission of Mr. Mantle. 
The number is IT, I think, ouc of 3-">. The following Senators I 
find on the yea-and-nay list in the Coxgressional Record 
among those who voted against his admission: Senators Berry, 
Blackburn. Coke, Faulknbr, George, Gibson, Harris, Kyle, 
Mills, Mitchell of Wisconsin. Murphy, Pasco, Peffer, Smith, 
Vance, Vest, and ^^'HITE of California. 

Mr, FORAKER. I am very much obliged to the Senator from 
Florida for giving us that iuformatum and for putting it in the 
Record, and yet there was no occasion to do so in view of the 
reason 1 assigned for making the statement I did. I did not criti- 
cise in any way the action of any particular Senator. What I 
went on to say was that such was the impression over the coun- 
try, and Ijecause that impression obtained there has not been any 
endeavor on the part of the people of the country to conform 
themselves to the requirements of that decision. Much less can 
it be said that any vested rights have arisen on account of that 
decision or that to overturn that decision if necessary now in seat- 
ing Mr. Corbett would be to disturb any property rights. This 
very case shows that the Mantle case, if at all applicable, has been 
disregarded. You will see that the use I made of the statement I 
gave was an entirely legitimate one. 

But now to recur to what I was about to say. Our action in de- 
termining whether or not a Senator who conies here with creden- 
tials shall be seated is not .ludicial action. I need not stop to read, 
for all Senators are familiar with the fact that the Constitution 
of the United States, in the third article, provides that the ,iudi- 
cial power of this Government shall be conferred upon certain 
coiirts which are named in the Constitution, or which, accoriling 
to that provision, are authorized to be created by. statute. There 
is no conferring of judicial power upon any body but the courts. 
The legislative branch has no judicial power. 

I have not been able to find any decision of the Supreme Court 
directly in point upon that question in the limited time I have had 
to make an examination, but being familiar with a decision of the 
Buin-eme court of Ohio that is directly applicable, I want to call 
attention to it. The constitution of the State of Ohio provides, 
just as the Constitution of the United States does, that the judicial 
power shall be conferred upon the courts enumerated in the con- 
stitution and authorized by statute. The constitution further 
provides that in all contested cases of election the trial shall be 
had before such tribunal as the legislature may appoint. 
The legislature of Ohio provided by statute that in every case 
8072 



of contested election of a judge the trial should be before the State 
senate. We had a judicial contest. It was brought before the 
Staie senate, and the State senate found against the contestee. I 
believe that is the way the case arose. At any rate, the decision 
of the State senate came before our supreme court, and one of the 
questions involved was wliether it was competent under our con- 
stitution to confer upon the State senate the power to hear and 
determine a case of contest. It was claimed that senators could 
nor sit as judges in that contested-election case without exercising 
judicial power; but our supreme court said, in answering that 
proposition, that the judicial power was conferred upon the 
courts, and that while this involved a necessity to sit and hear 
testimony and pass judgment, yet it was not in an approi)riate 
sense an exercise of judicial power, although approaching the 
exercise of judicial power in its nature, remarkiiig in that connec- 
tion that tliere were many powers which would be held to be leg- 
islative or judicial accordingly as the exercise of those powers 
might be conferred upon a court or upon a legislative body. 

i will not stop to read from the case, but it is the case of The 
State vs. Harmon (31 Ohio State Reports, page 2o0). The case 
there is precisely what the case is here. The senate of Ohio was 
empowered to liear and determine. They had to hear and weigh 
testimony; thev had to examine witnesses; they had to pass judg- 
ment; they had to determine rights. That is all we have to do in 
this case. We hear the testimony, we hear what the facts are, 
and we then apply the law to the case. 

3Ir. ALLEN. Is not that judicial power? 

Mr. FORAKER. No; that is what I am saying. It is a near 
approach to it, in the sense that it is kindred in its nature to ju- 
dicial power; so much so that it would be an appropriate power 
to lodge with the court. But, say the supreme court of Ohio, 
when that kind of a power is lodged with a legislative body it 
shall be treated as a legislative power, not a judicial power. And 
then they cite familiar illustrations which I might comment upon, 
but I will not stop to read them. When an assessor fixes the val- 
uation on your property for the purpose of taxation, he has to as- 
certain the facts: he has to excercise judgment; he has to reach 
a conclusion, but he does not exercise judicial power. 

Mr. ALLP:N. If the Senator will permit me. I do not want to 
interrupt him withoiit his consent. 

Mr. FORAKER. I vield with pleasure. 

Mr. ALLEN. The great weight of authority in the United 
States is that the assessor exercises quasi-judicial power in assess- 
ing property, and I think, if I may be permitted to make the re- 
mark, that the decision he cites is an exceptional decision which 
is contrary to the great current of American autliority. 

Mr. FORAKER. If th- Senator from Nebraska will take the 
trouble to read this decision, he will find that the supreme court 
of Ohio in announcing the decision has cited a number of authori- 
ties, and that instead of this authority being in conflict with the 
authorities of other States and of the United States it is in strict 
harmony with them. I havn not had time to examine these au- 
thorities, but I know enough of the character of them, from the 
quotations made, to know that the sn])reme court of Ohio in mak- 
ing tliis decision was not going counter to authority, but was go- 
ing consisteutiv with authority. 

Moreover, this decision is by Mr. Justice White, and there are 
Senators present in the Senate who know that, whi'e he held a 



7^ 



6 

place only on the State supreme brencli, yet he was one of the 
ablest jurists whoever sat on the bench of any court, in any State, 
or in the United States, so far as th^it is concerned. He was one 
of the most careful of judges. He has been long since dead, but 
his works will live after him so long as the decisions of our State 
are studied. No one who knew him would ever lightly say that 
Mr. Justice White ever rendered a decision that was not in hai'- 
mony with the authorities of other States. 

Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will permit me, I can not under- 
stand how power can be exercised by a court which is there con- 
sidered judicial power, and then when the same identical power 
is transferred to a legislative body the same identical power can 
be called legislative power. 

Mt. FORAKER. Probably I had better read what the judge 
saj's here. I thought I would save time by omitting the reading. 

Mr. ALLEN. Of course I do not ask the Senator to read the 
decision, but the elemsnt of judicial power is the right to hear 
evidence, to inc^uire into facts, to determine the cause of contro- 
versy, and enter a judgment. If any tribunal has that power it 
is either a judicial or a quasi-judicial tribunal for that purpose. 

Mr. FORAKER. Let me read from the decision and then you 
will get the reasoning of the court. I have no trouble in adopting 
and approving it. I do not know how it will be with the Senator 
from Nebraska, but I hope he will see the force of it as well as 
myself. Mr. Justice White said, in speaking upon this point, on 
page 2.38: 

The distribution of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial 
branches of the government is, in a general sense, easily understood; but no 
exact rule can be laid down, a priori, for determining, in all cases, what pow- 
ers may or may not be assigned by law to each branch. 

The power of alloting to the different departments of government their 
appropriate functions is a legislative power; and in so far as thedistrDnition 
has not been made in the constitution, the power to make it is vested in the 
general assembly, as the depository of tlie legislative power of the State. 

True, the judicial article requires the judicial power of the State to be 
vested in the courts and in justices of the peace; but of what this judicial 
power consists, and what are its limits, are not defined. 

And as they were not defined in the constitution of Ohio, so, too, 
they are not defined in the Constitution of the United States. It 
is simply a provision that the judicial power shall be lodged with 
the courts. The two constitutions are alike in that particular. • 

The jurisdiction of the courts and justices, except in a few specified cases, 
is required to be such as may be prescribed by law. 

What constitutes judicial power, within the ra-i-aning of the constitution, 
is to be determined in the light of the common law and oi the history of our 
institutioTis as they existed anterior to and at the time of the adoption of the 
constitution. 

Whether ])ower. in a given instance, ought to he assigned to the judicial 
deiJartment is ordinarily determinable from the nature of the stibject to 
which the power relates. In many instances, however, it may appropriately 
be assigned to either of the departments. 

It is .said authority to hear and determine a controversy upon the law and 
fact is judicial pDwi'r. 

That such authority is e.ssential to the exercise of jiidicial power is admit- 
ted; laut it does not follow that the exercise of such authority is necessarily 
the exercise of judicial power. 

The authority to ascertain facts and to apply the law to the facts when 
ascertained appertahis as well to the other departments of the Government 
as to the judiciary, .ludgment and discretion are required to be exercised 
by all the (ie])iu-tments. 

The exercise of the power of eminent domain vested in county and town- 
ship boards and in corporations is not the exercise of judicial power within 
the meaning of the ('otistitution, while the exercise of the same power by 
the courts, if vested in thorn, would bo judicial. 
3072 



^ 3 



And so he goes on. I need not read at greater length. The 
Senator can take the book, if he would like, and look through it 
at his pleas\tve. 

Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will ptn-niit me, what is the line of 
distinction between ministerial and judicial power? 

Mr. FOliAKER. As the supreme court ot Ohio has said in the 
decision from which I hiive just been reading, it is at times diffi- 
cult to detiae the distinction between judicial and ministerial 
power, and in such (;ases. where one so nearly approaclies the 
other in character that it is diificult to distinguish, they will be 
governed in determining whether it is the one or the other by the 
nature of the agency selected for the administration of the power, 
as. tor instance, if the power be conferred upon a court to hear 
and determine in a contested-election case, they will call it a ju- 
dicial power, but if it be conferred upon a legislative body, it is a 
legislative power. 

Mr. ALLEN. Is not this the distinction, if the Senator will 
permit me. that administrative power admits of no discretion; 
that it is mandatory: that you niust execute it? 

Mr. FORAKER. That dejends upon the statute. 

Mr. ALLEN. The very elements of judicial power are discre- 
tion, investigation, inquiry, and judgment. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not understand that in the exercise of 
administrative power the official is not invested with any discre- 
tion; on the contrary, I can not think of a case, as I now try to 
think of one. wher.' he does not have discretion. Think of the case 
we were talking about a moment ago, where the taxing officer 
examines your property with a view of determining what valua- 
tion he will put upon it for the purposes of taxation; it is discre- 
tion that he is invested with, as well as a duty to ascertain the 
facts. All values are necessarily in their nature comparative. 

Mr. ALLEN. I think 1 can call the attention of the Senator to 



& CflSG 

Mr. FORAKER. Doubtless you can, but I do not think of one 
just now, and I will be obliged to the Senator if he will suggest 
one. 

Mr. ALLEN. A clear case of administrative power is that of 
the clerk of a court where he attaches seals, etc. 

Mr. FORAKER. That is very true. I am trying to think of 
cases, however, as to which it would be difficult to draw the lines 
of distinction. Certainly nobody would presume that the ordi- 
narv duties of the clerk of a court were doubtful of construction; 
nobodv would contend that a purely ministerial power of that 
character was judicial in its nature. I am trying to think of a 
case where an official of a municipality, of a State, or of the 
United States Government is invested with some kind of ministe- 
rial power and reriuired to perform some kind of administrative 
duty which in its nature approaches the exercise of judicial power, 
and I can not think of one where he is not invested with the power 
of discretion— with the power of coming to a conclusion after he 
examines the facts and after he reasons in regard to them. 

Therefore it is that I do not believe we ought now to follow the 
decision in the Mantle ca«e l)ecause, in my opinion, that decision 
was erroneous, and because. Mr. President, this country has never 
accepted it and followed it in such a way as to make it appro- 
priate to applv here, if otherwise it might be appropriately ap- 
plied, the doctrine of stare decisis. No rights have been vested on 
account of it; no rule of property has Ijeen created on account of 

3072 



8 

it: no rule of public policy will be \nolated that has been adopt^^d 
on account of the Mantle case if we now depart from it. There- 
fore, if the Mantle decision was erroneous, as invoking the doc- 
trine of stare decisis implies that it was and concedes that it was, 
we are under no obligation whatever to follow it and now make a 
second erroneous decision. 

In the nest place. I object to following it, Mr. President, be- 
cause, not being a judicial decision, if it were otherwise on all 
fours with this case, the disposition of the Mantle case would not 
bind us now upon the doctrine of stare decisis or res adjudicata, 
because that doctrine can be applied only to a judicial decision, 
and that decision was not jttdicial. Jtidicial power in this coun- 
try is conferred upon the courts. It is onl3' when courts pass 
judgment upon those things with respect to which they have been 
given jurisdiction that judicial power is exercised and the predi- 
cate is laid for invoking the doctrine of stare decisis, other things 
being appropriate for its application. 

But, Mr. President, there is a stronger reason to my mind — if it 
be possible to have any stronger — thrin the one I have suggested 
why the decision in the I\Iantle case should not bind anybody in 
this case; why we should feel ourselves at liberty to take up "this 
case and consider it res nova. It has been said here, and repeated 
here over and over again, that this case is identical with the 
Mantle case upon the facts. I do not so understand it. Not only 
do I not understand the facts to be the same , but I can not com- 
prehend how any Senator can make that statement about the 
facts, admitted and conceded to be what all agree that they are — 
but when I speak of facts I contradistinguish simple facts from 
the mixed case of law and fact. 

There is not any question but that in the Mantle case the legis- 
lature had met. had organized, and as an organized body was in 
session, with full power and opportunity to elect a Senator if it 
had seen fit to do so. and failed. In this case it is an admitted 
fact that while the mem\)ers-elect to that general assembly had a 
meeting, they never did have an organization as a legislature 
under and in accordance with the provisions of the constitution 
of the State of Oregon. 

I listened to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Turley] yester- 
day as he stated the undisputed facts. If I do not state them 
exactly as they are, I trust he will correct me. The senate met — 
the members-elect. They had a temporary organization. They 
met subsequently and had a permanent organization, and there 
is not any question but that the senate of Oregon Avas duly con- 
stituted. <luly mi^t. duly org:mized. and duly in session, with power 
to d« its part in the election oT a Senator. 

As to the house the case was different. They met: they liad a 
temporary organization; appointed a committee on credentials. 
and adjourned witiiout anybody taking the oath of office. They 
never met again, except only a portion of them. The constitu- 
tion of Oregon provides that two-thirds of the whole number 
of members elected or 40 —having reference to the figures that 
will represent the number of members of that house — shall con- 
stitute a (luorum. There were never but 31 assembled after 
the first meeting: never but HI members met who had taken the 
oath of office. There was not, therefore, ever a quorum of the 
house of Oregon in meeting or in session of any kind whatsoever; 
and yet it is said they were in session and thej' had a full oppor- 
tunity to elect a Senator. 

How is that saidV It is said they were in session, because the 
an:.' 



constitution of Oregon provides that less than a quorum may ad- 
journ from day to day, and shall have power to send for and com- 
pel the attendance of absent members: and because, while they 
were so sitting and adjourning from day to day and undertaking 
to comjiel the attendance of absent members, they were not sub- 
ject to an-est; they were in the enjoyment of all the privileges 
conferred upon those who were in attendance upon the general 
assembly in the performance of their duties: and because, fur- 
ther, it is provided by the statute of Congress that on the second 
day of the Senatorial election, when the two houses of the legis- 
lature meet in joint session they shall proceed with the election, 
provided there be a majority of both houses present. 

Well, now, Mr. President, let us examine that .lust for a mo- 
ment. It does not seem to me that upon these facts there was a 
house of representatives in session v.hen less than a (juorum had 
taken the oath of office, and were meeting from day to day. and 
adjourning from day to day, with power to compel the attendHiice 
of absent members, and when it is admitted that they nes er did 
compel such attendance. 

Certainly it can not be contended that there was ever an organi- 
zation of that hoTise which met the recjuirements of the constitu- 
tion of Oregon, and surely, for the ijurposes of orgauizatioji, that 
constitution would be the organic and supreme law to govern the 
house of representatives. It does not cut any figure. Mr. Presi- 
dent, that there was a majority present, or more than a ma.jority, 
•who had taken the oath of f)fhce, so long as the majority failed to 
be a quorum. It there had been only lU members of the general 
assembly present who had taken the oath of office, who were meet- 
ing from day to day and adjourning from day to day, with power 
to send for the other members and compel their attendance, 
those 10 would have been just as much a legally organized and 
acting house of representatives of the State of Oregon as the 31 
members were or ever could be. It does not make any difference, 
when you come to consider the question of organization, whether 
they had 31 members, or 21 members, or 10 members, or 5 mem- 
bers. So long as less than 40 members assembled and took the 
oath of office and undertook to act together, there was less than a 
quorum and never any organization. Nothing, it seems to me, 
can be more definitel}' established than that. 

How did the Senator from Tennessee yesterday, in his very able 
argument, with which I was pleased, although he differed from 
me in the opinion that he was trying to uphold, undertake to say 
that that legislature, which he was comyielled to admit never had 
any valid organization under the constitution of Oregon, had an 
opportunit}- to elect a Senator? He got around that by pointing 
out to us tlie language of the statute of the United States govern- 
ing in such case and commenting upon that feature of it to which 
I have already adverted, that on the second day. if there be a ma- 
jority of each house present, they may proceed to the election of a 
Senator. Ah. but, Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee 
skipped over lightly the preceding section of this statute. This 
stature can have no application or operation except only the con- 
dition precedent, for the second day's session, the joint session, 
snail have been complied with. What is the language of the 
statute? I will read section 14, Title II. chapter 1: 

Sec. 14. The legislature of each State which is chosen next procedini? the 
expiration of the time for which anv Senator was elected to represent such 
State in Congress shall, on the second Tuesday after the meeting and organi- 
zation thereof, proceed to elect a Senator in Congress. 
oOTtJ 



^ 



10 

When came the time — will some Senator please answer— when 
it was competent iinder this statute for the legislature of Orey;ou 
to proceed with the election of a United States Senator? This 
statute can have no application, can c;;)nfer no power or authority 
until after the legislslature sliall have met and shall have organ- 
ized. When did it organize? The senate organized, we ail agree; 
but the organization of the senate is not an organization of the 
legislature. When did the house organize? Never. That, Mr. 
President, is the crucial point in the whole case. There never 
■was any organized legislature in the State of Oregon. 

Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will permit me, what was the 
condition of the House on the 11th of Januarj/, when sixty mem- 
bers assembled at the proper place and elected a speaker pro tem- 
pore and all the necessary pro tempore ofQcers? What does the 
Senator call that? 

Mr. FORAKER. I call that a temporary organization: but a 
temporary organization was not essential. That is not a thing 
provided for by statute. That was something the members of the 
legislature had a right to resort to for their o^A^l convenience. 

Mr. ALLEN. But '• organization " is a very broad term. 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly it is a broad term, and yet a well- 
define-d one. 

Mr. ALLEN. I do not know but that 1 am unnecessarily 
trenching upon the Senator 

Mr. FORAKER. Oh, no. 

Mr. ALLEN. But, admitting that Congress has the power to 
go beyond the language and policy of the Constitution, which 
stops at "meeting," and say that the legislature shall organize, 
does the Senator say that organization must be a iiermanent or- 
ganization as distinct from a temporarj- organization? 

Mr. FORAKER. I do most emphatically. The law does not 
know anything about a temporary organization. Mr. President, 
the law does not authorize a member of the legislature to perform 
the duties of a legislator until he takes an oath of office to sup- 
port, not only the constitution of his State, but the Constitution 
and laws of the United States. It is one thing to be elected and 
another thing to be qualified. 

Mr. ALLEN. Suppose thi? house had never gone any further, 
but had gone right along with that temporary organization and 
passed laws, would not those laws be valid? 

Mr. FORAKER. Not at all, in my judgment. 

Mr. ALLEN. Especially would they not be valid in a collateral 
proceeding? 

Mr. FORAKER. There might possibly be some case in which 
some irregularity of that nature might be overlooked. I do not 
know what the Senator has in mind, but I am confining myself to 
the requirements of this case. 

Mr. ALLEN. In other words, would not that have been a de 
facto hoiise of representatives? 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not think it vrould, Mr. President, un- 
less they took the oath of office recognized by the constitution and 
laws of their own State, at least, and perfected an organization 
after thej^ had taken that oath of oifice. 

Mr. ALLEN. If those sixty men under that temporary organi- 
zation had participated in the election of a Senator, could we deny 
the gentleman appearing under that election the right to a seat 
here because the organization was not permanent? 

Mr. FORAKER. I think so. I think if sixty men had come to- 
gether, and before they took the oath of office— setting aside this 

3072 



^ 



11 

United states statute now as unconstitutional, and looking only to 
the constitutional provision — if those sixty men had come together 
without taking the oath of office, and had simply called someone 
into the chair and had taken a vote and had elected somebody 
Senator and sent him here, and on the next day thwhad taken an 
oath of office and effected a permanent organization and had 
elected somebody else and sent him here to contest the seat — if 
such a thing could have been possible, and it is not more unrea- 
sonable to suppose it to be possible than is the hypothesis put by 
the Senator from Nebraska— I think we would all be found voting 
without hesitation for the Senator who was elected by the legis- 
lature after the memljers took the oath of office and qualified to 
act under the laws of Oregon and under the laws of the United 
States. I do not know whether the Senator from Nebraska has 
any authority iipon which he makes the suggestion contained in 
his'intpiiry. or not. If he has. I should be very much obliged to 
him if he would cite it to me. Is such a thing possible? 

Mr. ALLEN. I did not want to cite any cases, because I do not 
readily recollect cases, but I can cite. I think, similar situations 
and conditions. In .iudicial proceedings, if a man is called into a 
jury box and is permitted to sit as a juror and trj- a cause without 
being sworn, his verdict is binding and (jan not be set aside on 
that ground. 

Mr. FORAKER. Do you suppose if a jury of which he was 
one of the constituent members were to find a man guilty of mur- 
der, that that man would ever be hanged if the fact were brought 
forth of his having sat in the box. practicing a fraud and pre- 
tending to be a duly qttp.litied juror when he was not'-' No court 
that ever sat in Christendom would ever refuse to set aside such 
a verdict. 

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator is mistaken abotit that. 

Mr. FORAKER. If I am, I am badly mistaken. 

Mr. ALLEN. Cases can be found without number, criminal 
and civil, where a man has been called into the jury box and has 
never been sworn, but the trial has proceeded by the consent of 
the parties, and a verdict has been rendered. 

Mr. FORAKER. Ah. "by the consent of the parties." Of 
course that is a verj' different thing. 

Mr. ALLEN. And the court refused to set aside the verdict. 
In this connection — and then I will leave the Senator 

]\Ir. FORAKER. No: I hope the Senator will stay witli me. 

Mr. ALLEN. I want to suggest this thought, that one of the 
elements of a de facto officer is that he does not take the oath of 
office, but simply, as a matter of fact, exercises and discharges 
the duties of th^ office. 

3Ir. FORAKER. Mr. President. I do not question but that 
authorities may be found, though I do not recall any at present, 
where the sitting of a juror, with eleven others who are all sworn, 
and lie sitting without taking any oath, might he binding, in the 
sense that those who hiid tried the case before the jury would be 
estopped from complaining of the fact that he Vas not sworn; they 
would be estopped in the case put by the Senator where the parties 
who h.ul conducted the trial before an unsworn jiiror had full 
knowledge and con.sented to it: but it would be. it seems to me. an 
absurd proposition to say that a juror who had been calieil into 
the box and had sat there unsworn could render a verdict that 
would be binding in either a criminal or civil case if the parties 
who had submitted the cause to that jury had no knowledge of 

31)72 



12 

the fact, but supposed all tne while that he had been sworn. In- 
stantly, I say, any court would set aside a verdict rendered b^- a 
jury that was subject to that intirmity. 

So it is, I say — getting back to tiie inquiry put by the Senator 
a while ago as to what would be the effect upon the election by 
this house of representatives in the State of (Jregon if thej' had 
never (lualified by taking an oath — the effect would be that iheir 
action would be an absolute nullity. No man can enter upon the 
duties of a legislator under our Constitution and laws in this 
country until he is qualified for that service. 

When these sixt}" men met who had been elected to this house 
of representatives, they were simply members-elect; they were not 
yet the legislature. By virtue of their election they had come 
into a situation where they might qualify, by taking the necessary 
oath and becoming legislators, to legislate for the people of Oregon 
and, among other things, help in the election of a United States 
Senator: but until they did qualifj'. the}' were no more, so far as 
transacting business validly was concerned, than any other sixty 
citizens of the State of Oregon would have been. 

The temporary organization does not cut any figure, because that 
organization is not recognized by the law. What the law recog- 
nizes and talks about is the permanent organization, or, at least — 
for I use that term in a specific sense — the organization, if it is 
necessary to qualify it at all, that is perfected by the leijislature 
after the members elected to the legislative body have taken the 
oath of office and otherwise qualified themselves and put them- 
selves in a situation to pass bills and transact the ordinary business 
that comes before a legislature. 

^Ir. President, until that point is reached — and that is the point 
I want to get back to — this statute, which the Senator from 
Tennessee relied upon yesterday to support his case, has no 
operation whatever; for the language of the statute is that the 
first vote for United States Senator shall be taken by the legisla- 
ture in separate houses on the second Tuesday after the legisla- 
ture shall have met and shall have organized. It is not enough 
that the legislature shall meet. The legislature must also organ- 
ize, and until it shall have organized this statute has no operation 
whatever, conceding the constitutionality of it. as that has been 
conceded all the way through, and I do not propose by making 
that qi;alification to intimate anything on that point one way or 
the other. 

Therefore it is. ^^'ithout meaning to detain the Senate unduly, I 
claim that if otherwise the Mantle case might apply, it can not 
have any application liere. because the facts are not the same. In 
the Mantle case tlie legislative body met and organized: it was in 
session: it had power and authority and opportunity to act and 
failed to act. 

Mr. SPOONER. And it passed laws. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes; it passed laws and did all the other 
things that legislatures are called upon to do. but in this case they 
never organized. Therefore this statute never applied, and there- 
fore there was never any time when either the first or second vote 
could l)e taken: ther^' never was a time when a majority of each 
house could assemble in joint session and proceed to the election 
of a Senator, because the condition precedent had never come to 
pass of an election or a vote in separate houses on the second 
Tuesday after organization. 

Now, I do not understand that there is any dispute about the 

3072 



^o 



13 

facts. The only qiiestion is, What is the legal effect of the facts? 
and to my mind it is as clear as anything can be tliat this 
statute governing the election of United iStates Senators can not 
have any application to this case, for the simple reason tliat there 
never was an organization; and in that particular. Mr. President, 
the ^Mantle case differs from any other case that ever came into 
this Chamber, so far as I am familiar with the record. 

It is not necessary for me to take np and discuss what ought to 
be the decision in a case like the Mantle case beyond the point to 
which 1 have already discussed it. If I had been here when the 
Mantle case was decided. I am quite sure I should have voted to 
seat the Senator, because in my judgment it is not competent for 
the Senate of the United States to uiulertake to discipline a State — 
a Commonwealth of this Union — like you would undertake to dis- 
cipline a naughty schoolboy. 

We have heard it said iu this Chamber this morning that we 
miist stand by the decision in the Mantle case in order that that 
decision may be not only a finalitj*. but, like a statute of repose, 
put this question at rest forever; and we are told if we do not set- 
tle it in this way we put a premium on the insubordination of 
legislatures, and that that is one of the menacing dangers of this 
Rei)ublic. 

Mr. President, a far greater danger to the institutions of this 
country, in my judgment, is to be apprehended from an evasion 
or violation of the Constitution of the United States, no matter 
what the excuse may be. 

The Senator from" Nebraska [Mr. Thurston], in speaking here 
a few moments ago, told iis that he did not know what he might 
have done or what view he might have taken of this provision of 
the Constitution in the early days of the Republic, a hundred years 
ago. but he was clearly of the opinion that now it was necessary 
that this view should be upheld. Mr. President, this provision 
means to-day precisely what it meant one hundred! years ago, and 
what it meant then and means now we ought to adhere to with- 
out regard to the consequences. If the framers of the Constitu- 
tion did not pro\-ide for a case which was then iintoreseen, the 
duty resting upon us is not to undertake by our action to frame a 
new constitution, but to submit a jiroposition of amendment to 
the people of the United States, and let them, in the way pointed 
out bj' the Constitution, amend it if they see fit. 

For my part, Mr. President. I have no apprehension of danger 
to the Republic from any such cause. So long as human nat ure 
is as it is— and I suppose that will be forever — there will be fac- 
tional controversies: there will be divisions: there will lie more or 
less of contention connected with the election of a United States 
Senator, and there vnU be many times when a legislature may fail 
to elect for the very best of reasons. The Senator from Wiso m- 
sin in his very able speech pointed out a number of such instances. 
It is not necessary for me to repeat them. 

We can well afford. Mr. President, to leave to the legislatures 
of the various States, acting upon their responsibility to their con- 
stituents, acting under their oaths of office, the discharge of this 
duty. It is not necessary for us to make a new Constitution every 
time we are called upon to vote upon a question whether or not a 
Senator who comes here with credentials shall be admitted. 

I do not propose to stop now to argue what should be the inter- 
pretation of the word •■hap]>en." or what should be the interpre- 
tation of the words "recess of the legislature." I do not propose 
3072 



14 

to go into any of these refinements. It is si^fficient for me to be- 
lieve—and that meets all the requirements of this case— that it is 
not for us to consider the motives of a legislature in failing to 
elect. It is our duty to recognize what I think is very generally 
conceded to be a fact, notwithstanding what has been said here, 
that it was the purpose of the framers of the Constitution to give 
the States continual and, as nearly as possible, uninterrupted 
renresentation in this Chamber. 

Mr. SPOONER. If my friend the Senator from Ohio will per- 
mit me, I should like to ask him a qviestion. Does he think if we 
should submit to the States an amendment to the Constitution 
providing that where the legislature of a State fails to provide for 
an anticipated vacancy the State should go without representa- 
tion, or partial representation, in the United States Senate until 
the legislature should meet and elect, that such an amendment 
would get a single vote? 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not think it would get a vote— not one. 

While these contentions about the election of Senators are un- 
pleasant and disagreeable— we have had our fair share of them in 
Ohio; doubtless you have had them in other States— I have never 
known of any great harm to come from them. After all. the 
matter finds solution. If the legislature fail to elect, it mav be for 
a good cause or a good reason, and quite as often it is for'a good 
reason as for a bad one. and quite as often the iniblic good is sub- 
served as injured by a failure to elect. But however that mav be, 
the point I wish to make is. that we ought to take the Constitution 
just as it is and not undertake to refine in order that we may reach 
an interpretation that \vill enable us to shut the door of the Sen- 
ate in the face of a man who comes here with credentials which, 
in^the absence of question, would entitle him to a seat. 

It is sufficient for us in this case to know that there was a va- 
cancy. There was only one Senator here from the State of Oregon. 
One seat was empty. The legislature was not in session: it never 
had been in session, organized, so as to act under the United 
States statute, and whether or not it was organized, it was not in 
session when the vacancy occurred, and the governor, the State 
having but one representative here, then exercised his power to 
send a man; and that is just as far as 1 am going to look. I be- 
lieve it is our duty to seat him. Regard for individuals has not 
anything to do with it. I do not know the man who contended 
against Mr. Corbett. I do not know anything about Mr. Corbett, 
except only as I have casually made his actiuaintance here. I 
esteem him highly, but I look upon this matter independently of 
men, and I believe we ought to see to it with care tliat we do'not 
set another wrong precedent, as many Senators believe a wrong 
precedent was set in th(> IMantle case. 

Mr. President, with these observations I shall submit the ({ues- 
tion, so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. MANTLE. Mr. President. I do not rise for the purpose of 
making a speech upon the case which is now being considered 
with respect to the seating of the appointee from "the State of 
Oregon. I do. however, desire to say just a word before the 
debate closes, giving briefly the reasons for the vote which I shall 
cast when the matter is up for final determination on Monday next. 

It happened that about five years ago 1 came to the Senate of 
the United States bearing a commission from the governor of the 
State of Montana, who had appointed me under practically the 
same circumstances which surround the case now before the Sen- 

3072 



15 

ate. The result of the three or four months' debate upon the case 
at that time was a vote which dechired that the governor could 
not legally appoint in such a case and that I was not entitled to a 
seat in this body. The vote was a very close one. and had all the 
Senators who were favorable to seating been present upon the 
occasion of the taking of the vote, the decision might have been 
different. I am inclined to think at least that it would have been a 
tie vote. 

So, looking at the matter in this light, not a great deal of im- 
portance attaches to tlie decision then rendered as establishing a 
precedent for the future action of this body, not that I hold tliat 
anv precedent established here relating to membership in this 
boilv or to the right of one claiming a seat in this body in cases 
such as the one now being considered can have any binding effect 
whatever upon those who may come here afterwards, or can be 
set up as a rule of action for the future conduct of the Senate of 
the United States. I hold that every member comes here sworn 
to uphold the Constitution and to be guided solely by his con- 
science in the determination of matters of this character: that no 
predecessor of mine can bind my action and neither can any action 
of mine bind my successor in respect to such (luestions. It is a 
subject upon which every member must exercise his own intelli- 
gence and his own judgment ajid be guided solely by his own 
conscience, his own conception of what the Constitution means 
and what is just and right and proper. 

I am inclined to believe, having been present during the entire 
debate five years ago. and I say it with all due to respect to every 
gentleman who was then a member of the Senate, that it was not 
the constitutional consideratitmof the subject solely which deter- 
mined the votes of a number of the members of this body. I am 
inclined to the opinion expressed but a few moments ago by the 
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Foraker] upon this point, and I find 
some warrant for making this assertion in observations made by 
the distinguished Senator from [Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] upon 
the occasion of the vote being taken on the Mantle case in 181)3. 
That distinguislied member of this body intimated very plainly 
that Senators were being governed, not by their views upon the 
Constitution, but rather by their views upon the opinion which 
might be held by the appointee respecting vital questions which 
were then uj) for consideration. 

At the time when I first presented myself before this body, m the 
month of March, 18i>3. witii the appointment from the governor 
of the State of Montana, the sentiment in this body was over- 
whelming in favor of seatiuLC. The matter went over, because a 
quorum was not present, until the extra session called by Presi- 
dent Cleveland in August. 1893. That extra session was called 
for the purpose of repealing what was known as the Sherman 
silver-purchasing law. Everyone here remembers how strc )ng the 
tide of sentiment rose both for and against upon that occasion: how 
very bitter the feeling became: what a prolimged and determined 
contest ensued in this body over the repeal of that law. and I do 
not hesitate to sav that it was because of the views which 1 held 
upon the financial question that some Senators, at least, in this 
bodv changed their opinions and voted against my being seated- 
I shall not stop to inquire into the circumstances and cond'tions 
which led up to this appointment. I do not consider that tney 
have any bearing upon the determination of this matter. If I 
were to do so, it would perhaps change my intention and lead me 
3072 



16 

to vote in another direction to that I intend. Neither shall I stop 
to inquire into the relations which the appointee now claiming a 
seat in this body has borne toward those circumstances and con- 
ditions. They are matters. I know, which are talked of privately 
here, and if what I hear is true, and I should stop to consider 
them, they too would influence me, no doubt, to take a different 
course from that which I propose to take. But I do not consider 
that I have a right to inquire into those circumstances. If an un- 
worthy man is appointed in such a case as this— and imderstand 
I do not say that such is the case; for I have no right to say so — 
the responsibility therefor must rest with the governor of the 
State who appoints him. 

There are two views, I take it, which must control and govern 
in this matter. One is the broad, liberal view that every State of 
this Union is entitled to its full representation upon the floor of 
this body, to the end that it may be upon an equality with every 
other State. The other is a purely technical view, which seems to 
me, with all due respect to those who entertain it, to be narrow in 
its scope, and which depends largely upon a distorted and unusual 
definition of plain, familiar words. 

I prefer to take what i conceive to be the broader view of the 
question, and while I deprecate the methods and the conditions 
which have led up to this appointment — while if I should stop to 
consider the politics involved or the views of the appointee upon 
the great vital questions which now confront the country. I should 
be led to vote against his admission here — yet, ignoring these 
minor matters, looking at it solely from the standpoint of what 
I conceive to be the rights of the people of Oregon, desiring to see 
that they have that full representation u])on this floor to which I 
believe they are justly and constitutionally entitled, I shall cast 
my vote in favor of seating the claimant. 

I merely wish to add. m conclusion, that in my humble judg- 
ment the case now under consideration, together with other cases 
of a like character which have transpired in the last few years — 
the cases in Montana. Wyoming, and Washington; later the case 
of the struggle over the election of a United States Senator in the 
State of Delaware, when the air was reeking with charges of 
bribery and corruption in connection therewith; the case of the 
legislature of Kentucky more recently, when the strife became so 
intense and the contention so violent that armed troops were com- 
pelled to invade the very sanctity of the legislative halls of that 
State in order, it was said, to prevent bloodshed: taking the case 
in the State of Oregon — taking all these cases together, it seems to 
me they furnish the very best and strongest jiossible reasons in 
favor of a change in the method of electing Senators to this body, 
and point forcibly and conclusively to the necessity for an amend- 
ment to the Constitution of the United States which shall provide 
for the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the 
people. Mr. President, I firnily believe that only in this way can 
we avoid the constant repetition of those disgraceful scenes of 
corrui)tion and debauchery which of late years have characterized 
so many Senatorial elections in a number of the States of the 
Union. 
3UT3 



THE CUBAN QUESTION. 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. JOSEPH B. FORAKER, 



OF OHIO, 



IN THE 



SENATE OF THE UNFFED STATES, 



Wednesday, April 13, 1893. 



WASHINGTOX. 

1S98. 



^^■ 



SPEECH 

OP 

IIOX. JOSEPH B. rOHAKER. 



The joint resolution (S. R. 149) for the recognition of the inde- 
pendence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the Government 
of Spain relinquish its authority and government in the Island of 
Cuba, and to withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and 
Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States 
to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry 
these resolutions into effect, was read the fii'st time at length, as 
follows: 

Whereas the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three 
years in the Island of Cuba, so near our own borders, hsivo shocked the moral 
sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian 
civilization, culminating, as they have, in the destruction of a United States 
battle ship, with »0(5 of its officers and crew, -while on a friendly visit in the 
harbor of Havana, and can not longer be endured, as has been set forth by the 
President of the United States in his message to Congress of April 11, 1898, 
upon which the action of Congress was invited: Therefore, 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Un ited States of 
America in Congress assembled, First. That the people of the Island of Cuba 
are, and of right ought to be, free and independent 

Second. That it is the diaty of the United States to demand, and the Gov- 
ernment of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of 
Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island of Cuba 
and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters. 

Third. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is. di- 
rected and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the L'nited 
States, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of 
the several States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry these resolu- 
tions into effect. 

The Secretary. It is proposed to strike out all after the re- 
solving clause and insert: 

The President is authorized, directed, and empowered to intervene at 
once to restore peace on the Island of Cuba, and secure to the people thereof 
a firm, stable, and independent government of their own, and is authorized 
to use the Army and naval forces of the United States to secure this end. 
******* 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, in his message of the 11th in- 
stant the President of the United States has very thorouglily and 
with striking effect and force reviewed the entire Cuban (luestion. 
After a thorough discussion of it in all its features and aspects, 
he announces certain conclusions which he has reached. Among 
these conclusions is the following. I read from the President's 
message. Speaking of the long-protracted struggle in Cuba, he 
says: 

The long trial has proved that the object for which Spain has waged the 
war can not be attained. 

After stating his conclusions, the President then makes certain 
recommendations, some in a negative and some in an affirmative 
form. One of the negative recommendations is that notwith- 
3a29 3 



//r 



standinfj lie finds and states to us that the effort of Spain to sub- 
due and conquer the insurgents in Cuba has been futile, we shall 
continue to deny to the people of Cuba and also to the govern- 
ment established by the insurgents of Cuba a recognition of inde- 
pendence. 

The President then proceeds to make certain affirmative recom- 
mendations. One of these affirmative recommendations is that 
Congress shall invest him with power — 

To take measures to secure a full and final termination of hostilities be- 
tween the Government of Spain and the people of Cuba, and to secure in the 
island the establishment of a stable government, capable of maintaining 
oruei' and observing its international obligations. 

The President makes other recommendations, but I do not care 
to refer to them in this connection. 

This message, with these recommendations, was referred to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations. I need not say, after the read- 
ing of the very elaborate report of the Foreign Relations Commit- 
tee, that it has given to this subject the most profound, careful, 
and exhaustive consideration. That report was prepared by our 
distinguished chairman [Mr. Davis]. I may, therefore, with 
propriety speak of it in words of compliment. It must be mani- 
lest to every Senator that it bears the marks of that ability which 
characterizes all the productions of that distinguished Senator's 
pen. 

Together with this report, the committee has placed before us, 
with its favorable recommendation for adoption, a set of resolu- 
tions. Those resolutions have just been read. They declare, in 
the first place, that the people of the Island of Cuba aite, and of 
right otaght to be, free and Independent. In their second proposi- 
tion they declare that it is the duty of this Government to de- 
mand, and that this G-overnment does hereby— demand by the pas- 
sage of these resolutions — not by the action of somebody else 
hereafter to be taken — does hereby demand that Spain shall at 
once withdraw her land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban 
waters. 

The resolutions then go on to empower the President to employ 
the Army and the Navy of the United States to carry them into 
effect. 

It will be observed, if you compare the recommendations of the 
President with the recommendations of the committee, that there 
are some differences of opinion as to what should be done, although 
we are in accord as to the main great purpose that is to be accom- 
plished; for it will be observed, Mr. President, that the committee 
have differed from tlio President upon the question of recogniz- 
ing the independence of the people of Cuba, and as the Senate has 
been advised by the minoritj% or rather by the supplemental re- 
port ju-;t made by tlie Senator from Indiana [Mr. Turpie], a mi- 
nority of that committee, consisting of five members out of eleven, 
have reix)rted that in their judgment there should be added to the 
resolutions reported by the committee another resolution recog- 
nizing the Republic of Cuba as the true and lawful government 
of that island. 

Mr. FRYE. Were there not 4 out of 11? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes; 4 out of 11. 

Mr. FORAKER. I thought there were 5. I beg your jiardon. 
Tlie report will .show. 

Mr. FRYE. There were only 4. 

Mr. FORAKER. Four, ia it? I thought there were 5. 

^29 



:^.^c 



Mr. CULLOM. No; the minority report is signed by the Sena- 
tor from Indiana |Mr. Tukpie], the Senator from Texas [Mr. 
Mills), the Senator from Virginia [Mr. DanielJ, and the Senator 
from Ohio [Mr. ForakekJ. 

Mr. FORAKER. No matter how many signed it, the minority 
report is there. I signed it, and I stand liere to speak in behalf of 
that resolution so recommended by the minority of that commit- 
tee, as well as to speak in favor of all the resolutions recommended 
by the committee nnanimonsly. 

'The coTnmittee, Mr. President, in addition to this provision for 
recognizing the independence of the people of Cuba, have further 
declared that the time has come not for further negotiations but 
for Spain to withdraw her land and naval forces. In other words, 
they have dilfered with the President as to the form and charac- 
ter of that intervention. 

I shall speak presently with more particularity as to the ques- 
tion of our right at this time to recognize the independence of the 
people of Cuba and to recognize the independence of that govern- 
ment. I want first to speak briefly of the question of interven- 
tion 

Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me? 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes. 

Mr. MORGAN. I desire to call the attention of the Senator to 
the fact that the resolution provides that the Government of Spain 
shall at once relinquish its authority and government in the Island 
of Cuba and also v>"ithdraw its land and naval forces. 

Mr. FORAKER. I thank the Senator from Alabama for call- 
ing my attention to the text of the resolution. I was not looking 
at the resolution, although I had it in my hand, and was not en- 
deavoring to quote from it, but only to state the substance of it. 

As I was remarking, Mr. President, I desire first to speak of the 
difference between the Executive and tiie committee, as shown by 
these recommendations, as to the form and character of interven- 
tion. The committee differed with the President in the first place 
because, in the judgment of the committee, the time had come 
when no further negotiations were in order. In the language of 
the President employed in this message, the time for action, in the 
judgment of the committee, had come, and the committee felt that 
while tliey had the matter under consideration they would provide 
for action, immediate and specific, and, as they believed, in char- 
acter and keeping with the desires of the American people in 
respect to this matter. 

In the second place, Mr. President, the committee, or at least 
some members of the committee, had grave doubts as to the right 
of Congress to confer upon the Chief Executive of the nation the 
conditional exercise of the war-making power. Congress alone is 
invested with the war-making power. The proposition of the 
President was that he should take effective steps, such of course 
as he might deem effective, and that if he should fail to secure a 
cessation of hostilities in Cuba, then and in that event he was au- 
thorized to employ the Army and the Navy of the United States. 
In other words, make war in the condition or contingency that 
his negotiations should fail. I, for one at least, think the com- 
mittee generally doubted the legality of that proposition. 

Then, Mr. President, as to the establishment of a stable govern- 
ment by the President of the United States in the Island of Cuba, 
the committee were of the opinion that there might possibly bo 
grave doubt as to the right of Congress to empower the President 

3229 



>-^7 



of the United States or for the Congress itself to create and es- 
tablish a stable government in the Island of Cuba for the benefit 
of the Cuban people. 

However that may be, after the committee had declared that the 
people of the Island of Cuba are and of right ought to be free and 
independent, the proposition that the President of the United 
States or the Congress of the United States or any other exterior 
power should establish for that independent joeople a government 
stable or otherwise was inconsistent. 

If a people be free and independent, as we have in this first 
proposition declared that the people of the Island of Cuba are, 
they, and they alone, have power to establish their government. 
Independence and sovereignty go hand in hand, and any people 
who have independence have the capacity and the right to exer- 
cise sovereignty, and it is a denial of independence to say in the 
next breath after you have declared it that we will undertake, or 
we do hereby reserve the right and power, to establish for that 
independent people a government such as in our judgment and 
opinion may be stable. 

I mention these points of difference only because it is absolutely 
essential to an intelligent discussion that we should know what 
are the issues which have been joined. Without knowing what 
are the questions of difference we are groping in the dark. 

As I said a moment ago, I do not propose, beyond the mere state- 
ment of these grounds of dift'erences with the Executive as to in- 
tervention, to discuss that proposition. I return therefore at 
once to a discussion of the question whether or not the committee 
is justified in recommending the recognition at this time of the 
independence of the people of Cuba. 

Whether or not a i>eop!e who have revolted and rebelled against 
a sovereign power and are striving for independence are entitled 
to be recognized as an independent state is always a question of 
fact as well as a question of law. Before you can tell what law 
is applicable to any particular case you must ascertain what the 
facts are. What are the facts with respect to Cuba? Fortu- 
ratelj' in answering that question I need not long or tediously de- 
tain the Senate. Not only from the newspapers and other sources 
of information, but from Presidential messages, from the last one 
received, and especially and i:)articularly from the very able re- 
port of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we 
have been fully advised. 

Moreover, the whole country and the whole world are familiar 
with the Cuban question. All who know the facts know that for 
more than three years now war has been in progress in that 
island — bloody, fierce, ciuel. destructive war; destructive in an 
unusual degree both to life and propert j'; and all the world knows, 
too, that from the very beginning of that struggle down to the 
present time Spain has been, as to all essential and important mat- 
ters, uniformly unsuccessful. The President was justified when 
he said, in the sentence I read from his message a moment ago, 
that it is now manifest to all the world that the purpose of Spain 
to recover her lost sovereignty can never be attained. 

She started out with the idea that she would crush that rebellion 
with a blow. In that behalf she concentrated in that devoted 
island practically the entire military power of the Kingdom. She 
had there at one time and for months more than 200,000 of her most 
capable soldiers, commanded hy her generals who have been most 
successful in other fields; but it was all in vain. That tremendous 
army proved absolutely insufficient to conquer and subdue the 
8229 



a 



^z- 



insurgents and restore peace. Finding how xinavailing that kind 
of effort was, she then resorted to persuasion— to dii)loniacj'. 

She tendered autonomy, a new scheme of government— home 
n^le— a scheme with respect to which the senior Senator from 
Maine [Mr. Hale], speaking on this floor a few weeks ago, said 
it was the broadest, the most liberal, the most generous charter 
of liberty ever tendered by any sovereignty to a dependency. 
"Whether'it was or not is immaterial; it so impressed him. But 
however it may be, assuming that it was so, the people of Cuba 
who have risen in rebellion against the sovereign power indig- 
nantly spurned and refused it. That effort to conquer them was 
unavailing. 

Another policy has been resorted to of which I should speak — 
the policy of extermination, extermination by starvation, a policy 
so cruel, so unmerciful, so barbarous in its practices and in its re- 
sults as absolutely to shock and horrify all Christendom. More 
than 200,000 lives have perished in Cuba as victims of that policy 
alone. While we sit here this afternoon deliberating, 200,000 other 
lives are perishing from it. 

Mr. President, notwithstanding the hurling of all this great 
force against the insurgents in Cuba, notwithstanding this effort 
of diplomacy and statecraft, this promise of reforms in govern- 
ment, notwithstanding the murder, for it is nothing else, of hun- 
dreds of thousands of men, women, and children in that island, 
to which I have referred, the insurgents stand to-day more defi- 
ant, more powerful, more assured of ultimate success and more 
determined to do, and dare, and die, if need be, in behalf of inde- 
pendence than ever before since this struggle commenced. They 
were never so strong as now. They control absolutely more than 
one-half of that territory. More than 400,000 of the population 
of the island recognize no government except only their civil gov- 
ernment. They have an army in the field, trained veterans they 
have become, numbering thirty-five or forty thousand men. well 
armed and well equipped, more invincible than at any time here- 
tofore; and as an offset to that success on the part of the Cubans 
that which the President indicates has been occurring with re- 
spect to Spain. 

Her army of more than 200,000 men has dwindled to from fifty 
to sixtv thousand effectives, poorly disciplined and poorly drilled, 
and that army of aggression and offensive operations has cea.sed to 
be an offensive and aggi-essive army. For months it has been only 
an army of occupation, holding on to the fortified cities, control- 
ling nothing in the island beyond the range of their guns, not 
daring to venture out beyond the walls of those cities and remain 
there over night for fear old Gomez would capture them and tako 
them off into his camp. 

Mr. President, in other words it is now plain to all the world, 
plain to Spain herself, for she has been for months, and is now by 
every steamer, recalling her troops from there, that she is no 
longer attended in her efforts to subdue that island by any reason- 
able expectation or hope of ultimate success. That being the case, 
such being the facts, what is the law of the case? I read from 
Hall on International Law. It is a standard and a modern 
authority. It has been written in the light not only of ancient 
but of modem precedents. I shall not stop to read all of the text. 
Mr. STEWART. From what page does the Senator from Ohio 
intend to read? 
Mr. FORAKER. Page 92. He telLs us that whenever the 

S239 



4i 



8 

struggle ou the part of the former sovereign becomes "so inade- 
quate as to offer no reasonable ground for supposing that success 
may ultimately be obtained, it is not enough to keep alive the 
rights of the state, and so to prevent foreign countries from fall- 
ing under an obligation to recognize as a state the community 
claiming to have become one." 

I need not read other authorities, but I challenge any Senator 
who may enter into this discussion to find an authority incon- 
sistent with the declaration which I have read, who is accepted as 
a standard authority among those who are competent to judge of 
international-law writers. 

That is the rule ; whenever the struggle on the part of the sovereign 
to recover lost authorit}^, lost sovereignty, has ceased to be attended 
with a reasonable hope or expectation of success, then other coun- 
tries have a right to recognize the independence of the opposing 
people. If I have been talking to any purpose, I have made it 
plain by the statement of facts I have given that no longer are the 
struggles of Spain in the Island of Cuba attended with any rea- 
sonable hope or expectation of success. That being true, Mr. 
President, according to the principles of international law we 
have a right, as the committee have reported, and it is our duty 
to recognize the independence of the peojile of Cuba. 

But suppose something is lacking in the Cuban case to justify 
us in claiming that they are absolutely free and independent, 
will not that which maj' be lacking, whatever it may be, be sup- 
plied when the United States of America intervenes, as we pro- 
pose to do by this same resolution? Intervention goes here, 
according to this resolution, as it does naturally, hand in hand 
with independence. When this demand which we all agree is to 
be made, that Spain shall withdraw, is made upon her, that min- 
ute she must either abdicate, which would leave the island free 
and independent to the satisfaction, I imagine, of the most hostile 
mind to the recognition of independence, or else, if she does not 
abdicate, she must then give battle— declare war; and what 
American can doubt, or does doubt, the ultimate result of war, 
if we are so unfortunate as to have war? 

Will it not result in the absolute freedom and independence of 
the people of the Island of Cuba? Unquestionably so; for we 
expect to prosecute a war to triumphant success, if we are driven 
into one. 

So, therefore, I say, upon authority, in strict consonance with 
the rules and principles of international law, it is the dut}- of the 
Government of the United States, as well as the riglit and privi- 
lege of tlrs Government, now. at this ver}- moment, when we pass 
a resolution to intervene, to recognize the independence of the 
people of that island- 
Mr. President, I now wish to speak of the resolution which the 
minority of the committee favor. The minority of the committee 
are not satisfied simply to recognize the independence of the peo- 
ple of that island. We want to recognize also, and we appeal to 
Senators in this Chamber to stand by us in that proposition, the 
government .set up bj' the insurgents, referred to bj' tne President 
in his message as the '"so-called" Cuban Republic. 

We think this government ought to be recognized in the first 
place because if the people of Cuba are free and independent, as 
we have agreed unanimously in thecommittee they are. who made 
them free and independent? Did they become free and independ- 
ent acting as a mob? exerting themselves in a state of anarchy? 



2-^ 



7 



without any political orgauization? No! Such wonderful achieve- 
ments as stand to their credit we all know could not have hc^en 
accomplished without concert of action, without political organi- 
zation, and thev had it in tlie Republic of Cuba. That was their 
civil government, to which the military force commanded by 
Gomez is subordinate. 

Mr. President, there are a great many other reasons why we 
should recognize that government. I hope I shall be able to men- 
tion a number of them. 

We ought to be willing to recognize it because of its form and 
character. It is a republican form of government. It is a gov- 
ernment based on a written constitution, in wb.ich the several 
departments of the government are established and the powers of 
the various departnients and officials are prescribed. It has a 
legislative, an executive, and a judicial department. The legisla- 
tive branch of the government is elected by popular vote. In 
Cuba, under this constitution, they have universal stiffrage. 
Every man or woman who owes allegiance to the Cuban Govern- 
ment' has a right to go to the ballot box and be heard in determin- 
ing what the government shall be as to the personnel of its offi- 
cials. The house of representatives, elected by the people in this 
manner, selects the president and vice-president and the cabinet; 
and what character of government have they selected? Let me 
call vour attention for a moment to the character of these officials. 

I have heard that government referred to here as though it were 
made up of a lot of inconsequential nobodies. I say, without at- 
tempting to disparage anybody, the president and vice-president 
of the Cuban Republic, for intellectual strength and power and 
vigor, for hitrh character, for unquestioned ability, for statesman- 
ship, will compare favorably with the President and Vice-Presi- 
dent of the United States of America, Than Bartolome Maso 
there is no more accomplished gentleman, probably, on the West- 
ern Hemisphere; a man of large means, a man of large experience 
in public affairs, a man who— and I mention this to show his 
character— when the war broke out called in all his creditors and 
paid every one of them in cash the full sum owing, then turned 
over the kevs to his tenants and departed for the field. He is now 
president of that republic, after having served two years as vice- 
president under Cisneros, recently elected as such by the general 
assemblv chosen by popular vote. 

With this distinguished president is associated in office as vice- 
president Dr. Domingo Mendez Capote, who was professor of law 
in the Havana University for years before called to this position. 
I have taken pains to find out about these people. They are men 
of distinguished reputation, men of high character, men of great 
learning and ability; and the secretaries, if it was worth while to 
take the time to pass them in review, would be shown to Ix; men 
of the same general class ami reputation and character. So mucli 
for the personnel of the Cuban Republic. 

Mr. President, what has this Government don«? I said a while 
ago if the people of Cuba are free and independent it is b'^cause 
this Government has acted as their political agency in gui ling 
and directing them to that freetlom and independence. It has 
been stated here that it is a pai^er government. That is true; 
but it is a most excellent paper government: it is a most exc ilent 
actual government as well. Not ony are all the officers elected 
in the manner I have indicated, but they are all in offire and all 
serving acceptably and efficiently in the discharge of tboir dr.tie&. 
3a>9 



10 

"We have taken a great deal of testimony before our committee in 
regard to this matter, but all we have taken in that way has been 
spread before the public, and it should be known to Senators. 

It is shown by that testimony that they have in the Island of 
Onba, instituted by this paper government, a postal system which 
is carrying the mails to-day throughout the island into every for- 
tified city, as well as throughout the territorial parts of the island. 
You can go to New York and deposit with the junta a letter ad- 
dressed to anybody, in any place in Cuba, with a Cuban postage 
stamp attached, and it will find its destination just as surely as 
a letter deposited in a United States post-office will reach its des- 
tination within our territory. They not only have a postal sys- 
tem, but they have a fiscal system — a fiscal system which has pro- 
vided tax collectors for the government throughout all that island. 

The island is divided into districts and subdistricts, with a col- 
lector in each, who is authorized to collect not indiscriminately, 
as the enemies of the Republic of Cuba would have you believe, 
but according to law duly enacted, in accordance with a uniform 
system prescribed for all who live in that island. Each and every 
man is required to pay precisely alike, and when the siibtreasurer 
of that government appointed at New York was before the com- 
mittee a few days ago he showed us in his books where more than 
$470,000 collected by these tax collectors throughout that island 
had been transmitted to him as revenues of that government, 
every dollar of which had been collected by the officials of the Re- 
public of Cuba, and for every dollar of which an official receipt 
had been given. 

They have, in addition to their postal and fiscal system, a school 
system more creditable than any established by Spain in any place 
in the world. They have a compulsory system of education. 
Every child between certain ages is required to attend school. 
They have a public printing press at their capital (of which I will 
speak in a moment), where, by the government, school books aro 
printed, and by the government distributed to the scholars 
throughout the island. All are educated according to a system of 
the government, a system established and conducted by the gov- 
ernment and the representatives of the government. 

Ah, but, some one says, it has no fixed capital and no seaport. 
There are a great many countries that have no seaports. That is 
of no consequence. Switzerland has not any seaport, and one or 
two of the South American republics, I believe, have no seaports. 
Other countries have been recognized as independent states when 
they had no seaports. That is immaterial. 

The Cubans do have a fixed capital. It is located at Cubitas. 
It has to be at times somewhat peripatetic, going from this to that 
place, but never removing any very great distance. They have 
stayed all the while within that one territorial subdistriet where 
the capital is, at Agramonte, in Cubitas, where it is located no\v 
and has been for some considerable time. They have ptiblic 
offices, the Presidential office, the office for each of the secretaries 
of state, as they are called there. Although there is a secretary 
of the treasury and a secretary of agriculture, etc. , they are all 
called secretaries of state, each for his own particular department. 

They have these offices, which aro occupied only for official pur- 
poses. In those offices the business of the Republic is conducted. 
There, in those offices, the archives of the nation are preserved, 
and I can say here, in passing, that although they have never been 
made public, some day when they will be made public, when Cuba 
£229 



11 

has been made free, yon will find in the archives of our country, 
in the office of our own Secretary of State, are the official commu- 
nications of the officials of the Republic of Cuba, and they are as 
creditable as any that have come from any country on the globe— 
communications of marked ability. 

But, Mr. President, there are other reasons why that Govern- 
ment, which 1 have undertaken to show does in fact exist, should 
be recognized. We should recognize it. if for nothing else, as a 
war measure. I do not doubt that intervention by the United 
States will mean war with Spain. We are bound to assume that 
it will. That being the case, we should, hand in hand with inter- 
vention, adopt this other resolution, recognizing not only the peo- 
ple but the Government also as independent, to the end that we 
may strengthen those who are our natural allies and who can do 
more for us thaji anybody else. 

Gomez has now in the field, as I said a while ago, some 35,000 
or 40,000 men. He would have many thousands more if ho had 
guns and ammunition for them. The very moment the United 
States intervenes and recognizes the independence of that republic 
Gomez can swell that array from 35,000 or 40,000 to 50,000, 00,000, 
80,000, 100,000 men. and all we will have to do is to put guns and 
ammunition in their hands and they will speedily evict the Span- 
ish battalions from the Island of Cuba. If we will only with our 
Kavy blockade the harbors, so that they can take no more provi- 
sions in, the Cubans will speedily put an end to the war, and there 
will be no necessity for this Government to expose our troops to 
the ravages of yellow fever and the other difficulties and disad- 
vantages that would attend a campaign in that island in the 
rainv season. 

But, Mr. President, there is another reason still why this propo- 
sition should be incorporated into these resolutions. It is the rea- 
son why, in the original draft of the resolutions, I incorporated it. 
I put in there, and propose to put it back in there if I can, a dec- 
laration that the Republic of Cuba shoiild be at once recognized 
by the Government of the United States because of the legal effect 
that would result if we did not do that. I hold that it is well set- 
tled as a principle of international law that if one country absorb 
another it takes not only the legal rights and advantages of that 
country but it t^akes also the obligations of that country. We 
have all been told by the newspapers and otherwise— I have never 
seen any contradiction of it, and therefore 1 have assumed that it 
is true— that the revenues of Cuba have been, by solemn enact- 
ment of the Spanish Government, pledged to the payment of the 
principal and interest of $400,000,000 of Spanish-Cuban 4 per cent 
bonds. 

Mr. President, what will be the consequence to this Government 
if we go down into that island treating them as in a state of an- 
archy, turning our back on Gomez and his government, denying 
that "there is any government, banishing Si):iin from the island, 
taking possession of the territory, and appropriating the revenues 
either to ourselves or to '"a stable'' government that the United 
States of America through the President is to establish in that 
island? What would be the conse<iuence? We would take the 
rights and privileges and advantages attaching to the territory 
and we would take the debts fastened on it also, just as if you buy 
a piece of property that is mortgaged, you take it subject to the 
mortgage and must pay the mortgage or lose your property. That 
ag29 



12 

is the legal proposition that I assert. I am not going to stop here 
to read authorities, but I will do so, if it should be challenged. 

Mr. ELKINS. Will the Senator from Ohio allow a question? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. ELKINS. If Gomez takes the island, what will become of 
the mortgage? 

Mr. FORAKER. It does not make any difference to us what 
happens if Gomez takes it; but I will tell you what will happen. 
If Gomez takes the island by revolution, the whole obligation is 
wiped out, for those who successfully revolutionize start anew, 
as revolutionists have started anew from the beginning of the 
world, except only as to obligations which they themselves might 
create. 

Mr. ELKINS. Let me ask the Senator one further question. 
If we should take the island by war, would not those obligations 
be wiped out as well? 

Mr. FORAKER. Do you want to take the island by war? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is not the question. 

Mr. FORAKER. It is the question that I put. Why do you 
ask me to discuss propositions not involved in this debate? It is 
because, in my judgment, this intervention is to be deliberately 
turned from intervention on the ground of humanity into an ag- 
gressive conquest of territory. 

Mr. ELKINS. That does not answer the question. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not care. 1 am not going to answer it 
now. I am not going to answer it because it does not belong in 
this case. I can not discuss every kind of a question that a Sen- 
ator by an interrogatory may seek to put before me, especially not 
when in the very next breath he will refuse or at least evade to 
say whether he wants this Government to acquire that island by 
conquest or not. 

I say here as a principle of international law, if the United 
States Government goes down there and drives Spain out and piits 
somebody else in, forming " a stable government " of her making, 
that ' ' stable government " will become responsible, and the L^nited 
States of America will become responsible. I will answer j-ou 
further now. You would not answer me. I thought probably if 
I dallied with you a while you would. If the United States of 
America takes that island by intermeddling, as writers on inter- 
national law call it, with the affairs of another, she, too, will be- 
come responsible, and what is the consequence? The United 
States of America steps in behind f oiir hundred million of Spanish- 
Cuban 4 per cent bonds. You do not admit the jn-oposition. It 
is possible that it is open to some debate. I "oall concede for the 
sake of the argument it is. But who holds these $40U,000,000 of 
bonds? I understand they are held largely in Germany, largely 
in France, and largely in the United States. 

Does anybody imagine, Mr. President, if we should go into 
Cuba and there establish a stable government for which we would 
be responsible, that the present Emperor of Germany would hesi- 
tate one moment to say to the people of the United States, ' ' You 
have taken by conquest the revenues that Spain had a right to 
pledge and did pledge to pay the iirincipal and interest of bonds 
due to my subjects, and I will now look to you? " Does anybodj' 
doubt that he would do it? No: nobody does who judges without 
bias, I feel free to assert. And if Spain and France would make 
such a demand on the United States, the distinguished Senator 

1229 



Ju- 



13 

from West Virginia, I imagine, would bo one of the first to say, 
" We ought to pay up rather than have any fighting." 

Mr. ELKINS. I do not think it is fair to put a question to me 
and not allow me to answer it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cockrell in tho chair). 
Does the Senator from Ohio yield to the Senator from West Vir- 
ginia? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. ELKINS. I say to the Senator that I would not. There is 
no soundness in his proposition. There is no authority in the 
world, and I challenge the Senator to show anything that gives 
authority, to support his proposition in law— any legal authority. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have a very good one right here. 

Mr. ELKINS. Read it. 

Mr. FORAKER. And I can give you a great many other au- 
thorities as they have been given by writers on the subject of inter- 
national law, for there is not one, from Grotius down to Lawrence, 
who does not assert that doctrine. Hall says, at page 103: 

Whcp a State ceases to exist bv absorption in another State, the latter in 
the same -way is tho inheritor of all local rights, obligations, and property. 

The whole State is not here absorbed, but that which is to b« 
absorbed is that which is subject to the lien. 

I might cite you many more authorities if I had thought it worth 
while to bring' them here and tax the patience of the Senate with 
them. 

Mr. ELKINS. That does not answer the question. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio yield 
to the Senator from West Virginia? 

Mr. FORAKER. I am always glad to hear from the Senator 
from West Virginia, for he is so very good-natm-ed. But, Mr. 
President, to go^Taack to what I was discussing, I was just about 
saying, suppose, for the sake of the argument, the Senator from 
West Virginia is right to the extent that it is a debatable proposi- 
tion ^ we must consider this as a practical as well as a theoretical 
question. Treating it as a practical question, do you suppose 
that the rulers of Germany, France, and other countries whoso 
subjects are interested as holders of these bonds would hesitate to 
call us to account? I do not hesitate to say they would. I do not 
hesitate to believe they would; and then we would have other and 
far more serious complications. I want to avoid them. 

If we recognize the independence of the Republic of Cuba, that 
liability is avoided. We absolutely estop everybody from making 
such a demand upon us; we take no responsibility. Those peo- 
ple, according to our resolutions, have already accompli?jhed their 
independence without any help from this country, but rather in 
spite of all this country has done to patrol our coasts in the in- 
terests of Spain. They are already in a situation where they can 
set up their government, and all we do in going there is to 
recognize the existence of that government and act with our 
natural allies. 

Ah, but says somebody, when you go there, if you recogmzethe 
existence of that government, you are compelled to rejiort to 
Gomez, and there will be a question at once between General 
Miles and General Gomez as to who should command. If there 
be any government in the Island of Cuba to-day. it is either the 
Spanish Government or it is the Republic of Cuba, and when 
General ISIiles goes to Cuba 1 would rather have him report to 
General Gomez than to General Blanco. 

3229 



:^^^ 



14 

Mr. President, for all these reasons, which lam conscious I have 
most imperfectly advanced, I believe that it is the duty of the 
United States Govenmient this very day, not only to intervene, 
but at the same time to recognize the independence of the people 
of that island and the independence of the government which 
the Cubans have established. 

I for one say to you frankly I would be ashamed to see the 
United States recognizing the independence of the people of Cuba 
and in the same resolution turning their backs upon heroic, grand 
old Gomez and his compatriots. For my part my voice is against 
any such proposition. 

Mr. President, I have not at any time had any trouble in my 
mind about independence and intervention, but I have had this 
kind of a trouble in my mind: The trouble has been whether it 
shoiTld be independence and intervention or independence and a 
declaration of war outright. I think, logically speaking, it ought 
to be a declaration of war, and I would be standing here arguing 
for such a declaration if I were not of the opinion that armed in- 
tervention will give us an opportunity to suitably punish Spain 
for the destruction of the Maine and 206 of our officers and sailors. 
[Applause in the galleries.] 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order must be observed in the 
galleries or thev will be cleared. 

Mr. FORAKER. We have been told, Mr. President, that the 
board of inquiry appointed by our Government by its report has 
estopped us from such a declaration. I dispute it. It is true that 
the board of inquiry found that they could not tell what person 
or persons were responsible for that disaster, but the context shows 
that in that connection they had reference only to the question 
what person or persons pressed the button that sent the electric 
current on its fatefiil mission; and that, Mr. President, is imma- 
terial in the light of the other facts unequivocally found by that 
board of inquiry. 

That board of inquiry has officially found— and it is a most con- 
servative report throughout; as the President well says in his 
message, all Americans have absolute confidence in the truthful- 
ness of it— that board of inquiry found that our ship went into 
that harbor on a friendly mission; that the Spanish authorities 
were advised in advance of her coming; that she was coming not 
for warlike purposes, but only on a mission of peace, to cultivate 
better relations with Spain — a courteous visit in recognition of 
the friendly relations, of which we have heard so much, between 
Spain and this country. The court further find that when our 
ship reached the entrance to the harbor she was taken in charge 
by a Spanish official — the harbor pilot — and by him towed to buoy 
No. 4 and there made fast, and there stationed during her stay- 
in that harbor, and that while she was there stationed she was 
destroyed by a submarine mine. That is the finding. 

What, Mr. President, is a siibmarine mine? Did any Senator 
ever hear of any private individual having submarine mines on 
sale, or of any private individual handling submarine mines, es- 
pecially in a territory where war is present? And does not every 
Senator know that tmder the laws then in force in Havana, by the 
edict of Weyler issued on the lOtli day of February. 1896, no pri- 
vate individual could have in his possession any kind of an explo- 
sive, not even a pound of gunpowder, without being liable to the 
death penalty? Do you imagine that any private indi viduals, with 



15 

that kind of a law in force there, were engaged iu handling sub- 
marine mines? 

No, it is an ab«ohite absurdity, it seems to me, for ns to imagine 
that the submarine mine that destroyed the battle ship Maine was 
anything else than a governmental implement and agency of war. 
Sai)pose. for illustration, instead of that ship being destroyed by 
a submarine mine, as she was, she had been sunk by a shot fired 
from Morro Castle, under the guns of which slie "was buoyed. 
Would any Senator in such instance imagine that there could be 
any question about that piece of artillery l>eing a governmental 
agency and implement of war? Would anybody stand up and 
question that it was a governmental agency under the control of 
government officials, and that tlie Spanish Government could be 
held liable by us for the result of the discharge of that gun as a 
hostile act of war? 

Mr. President, the gun was not any more a governmental agency 
than this mine was. The gun was not anymore under the control 
of the Government than this mine was. The gun was not any 
more subject to governmentiil control and to be discharged by 
governmental agencies than was this mine. 

But if it had been the case of a discharge from a gun, what would 
Spain have done? Why, the whole world would have recogniz.ed 
that we were bound to assume that it was an act of war. Spain 
would have recognized it. How could she have escaped from the 
consequences? Only in one way, and then she would have remained 
liable ft)r all damages that occurred. She could have escaped from 
the conclusion that it was an act of war by imme>liately disavow- 
ing and immediately establishing by incontrovertible proof that 
it was an accident, if such a thing were possible. 

Mr. President, the same rule that would jipplyin the case of the 
gun dofs apply, and did apply, in this instance. And, Mr. Presi- 
dent, the significant thing is that Spain admitted by her conduct 
that it applied. What did Spain do? Instantly she disavowed, 
just as she would have done in the case of the gun, and instantly 
sought to establish her innocence by proving that it was an acci- 
dent. 

No wonder, Mr. President, that she seized upon the theory that 
it was an accident when our own Government was everywhere 
proclaiming that it was an accident. She sought to establish that 
it was an accident; she pitched her defense on that proposition; 
she took her testimony; she made an official report. It is before 
the Senate. She finds in that report that the Maine was destroj-od, 
not by an external agency, but by an accident, by the exjilosion 
of one of her magazines. 

Mr. President, that report Ls a lie to the living and a libel ui)on 
the dead. It is on its face absolutely and conclusively false. 
There is one cii'cumstanee that will forever keep it branded as 
such, as it now is, and that is the fact that the keel plates of that 
ship after the explosion were found 34 feet above win i-e they 
should liave been found as the ship rests on the bottom of tliat 
harbor if there had beeunoexi)losion. and the bottom p'atesof tlie 
ship are bent upward like an inverted V, like my hand is [illus- 
trating]. Do you think an explosion from within wonld have 
bent the keel plates npwnrd. won-d have drawn them up through 
tlie decks rn that ship a distance of 34 feet, ;ind would have bent 
them in that manner? No: von can not think that until the kiws 
of nature have been cbange<l. They have not been changed yet. 
They were still in operation then. 
32S9 



rt 



16 

Now, what is the effect of this fact? Spain recognized that she 
must make a defense. She chose to call it an accident: she so 
reported. This one fact — the present condition of the keel plates— 
absolutely wrecks and destroys her whole defense as completely 
as the Maine was destroyed by her submarine mine. What is the 
result? The result of It is that Spain stands to-day convicted by 
her own effort at defense, convicted in the presence of the nations 
of the earth, of that hideous and cowardlj' crime. 

What is our dutj^ in view of it? Mr. President, we owe it to 
the brave men dead to vindicate their reputations from the brutal 
charge that they died of their own negligence. Y^e owe it, Mr. 
President, to the splendid record of the American Navy to pre- 
serve it from the tarnish that is sought to be put upon it. We 
owe it, Mr. President, to our own good name among the nations 
of the earth that the perpetrators of such a cruel outrage shall 
not go unwhipped of justice. 

No nation can aft'ord to pass by such an affront as that in silence. 
This is not a case for the application of the Scriptural injunction 
about the turning of the other cheek, but it is a case, Mr. President, 
for the application of that other Scriptural injunction, "An eye 
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." 

It is not morality, it is not Christianity, it is not religion, it is 
not common decencj^ it is not common sense, but only a maudlin 
sentimentality to talk in the i^resence of such circumstances and 
facts about the horrors of war. War is horrible, always to be 
deplored, and ever to be avoided if it can be avoided consistently 
with the dignity and the honor and the good name of the nation. 
But, Mr. President, much as war is to be deplored, it is a thousand 
times better to have it in a case like this than to be written down 
before all the nations of the earth as pusillanimous— as wanting 
in pluck and courage. 

Yes. Mr. President, business interests may be interfered with, 
loss of life may occur, all apprehended evils may result, but no 
matter what the cost, in the presence of this great commanding 
duty we must go forward. The time, 1 repeat, for dij^lomacy has 
passed. The time for action has come. Let the doubting, the 
hesitating, the opposing, go to the rear, while the virile, strong- 
minded, patriotic, liberty-loving masses of the American people, 
coming from all the sections and all pursuits and avocations of 
life, rally as one man around our gallant Armj' and Navy, and 
taking the flag of our country carry it on to triumphant victory. 
[Api3lause in the galleries.] 

A victory, Mr. President, for civilization over barbarism; a vic- 
tory for the right and capacity of man to govern himself: a vic- 
tory for the Western Hemisphere ; a victory for Cuba : a victory for 
freedom and libertj- and independence: a victorj- worthy of the 
descendants of the heroic men who achieved our own independ- 
ence, and worthy of the successors of those heroic men who have 
since preserved and perpetuated our priceless heritage. [Applause 
in the galleries.] 



^■r 



7 



Cuban Affairs. 
SPEECH 

OF 

HON. JOSEPH B. rO RAKER, 

OP OHIO, 

In the Senate of the United States, 

Wednesday, April SO, ISOS. 



CUBAN AFFAIRS. 

Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Colorado allow me to 
interrupt him a moment? 

Mr. TELLER. Certainlj-. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not want to engage in this debate, but 
in \-iew of the fact that I insisted as earnestly as I could upon the 
recognition of the Repiiblic of Cuba, I wish to call attention in 
this "connection to what was said in the Senate on the 2Sth of 
Februarj', 1896, by the present Secretary of State, Mr. Sherman, 
who was then a Senator from Ohio. He said: 

Tho objection has been made, not in debate here, but in the public press, 
that the Cubans have no organized government: that they have no local 
habitation and name: that they have no legislative powers; that there is 
nobody elected to make laws. That is absolutely untrue. Here in this little 
pamphlet— 

Which I see, by referring to a previous part of his speech, was 
something that had been published in relation to the conditions in 
Cuba- 
are the proceedings of the government of Cuba and of the people of Cuba in 
organizmg the government. Here is a statement of the growth of the rev- 
olution, of the battles and campaigns, and contemporaneous with these move- 
ments the preliminary organization of local self-government as constituted. 

Sir, much to my surprise, because I took up the general idea that those 
people, in tho first instance, were merely a band of discontents, having no 
organization, with whom we could not deal, it is shown by this official docu- 
ment, communicated to the Secretary of State, that they have gone through 
all the formulae of self-government as fully and completely as the people of 
the United States did at the beginning of the Revolution. 

This little document shows the organization of the legislature, the military 
organization, the election of a president. M. Cisneros. a man of high charac- 
ter, of conceded abilitv, a man of property and .standing, who also, I believe, 
took a prominent active part in the revolution of IS&i to lb78, besides being 
eminent in civil life. 

Here are rules for the regulation of the array. Here are stipulations made 
as to the treatment of prisoners, how they shall be dealt with, and it is a re- 
markable fact that in all the battles fought by these wandering •' robl>ers and 
bandits," as they have been called, whenever they captured a soldier of the 
Spanish army they released him and allov,-ed him to return to his command. 
This humane and generous treatment is far diflferont from the univcrsjil cu.s- 
tom of the Spanish troops when one of the rebels is taken. He is sent to a 
prison in Africa by the Spanish troops or is treated harshly and in some casf.» 

3254 1 



>-5'^ 



mnrdered. These are poor men; the army is composed of native Cubans and 
men some of whom have been freed from slavery, black people, but they have 
shown no si^ns of being g-uilty of the barbarous atrocity of which I shall have 
to speak hereafter, I am afraid injudiciously. 

That is as far as I care to read. The part to which I wanted to 
call attention, i^articularly, was the statement made by Mr. Sher- 
man two years ago in the Senate that he had been surprised, as I 
was surprised, when he came to investigate, to find that they had 
a government thoroughly organized and in successful operation. 
If that was true two j-ears ago, and unquestionably it was, and 
if it be true, as it unquestionably is, that from that day until this 
that government, with its army, has withstood the combined 
assaults of Spain upon it, it is a government which we have a 
right to recognize according to all the principles of international 
law, for it is not only standing as it then stood in defiance of the 
power of Spain, but now it can be said, as it was not said and 
could not be said then, that Spain has ceased to be attended in 
her efforts to conquer those people with any reasonable hope or 
expectation of success. That is said; it is said by the President 
of the United States in the message which lie sent us. 

It was becau.se two j^ears ago the truth was, as Mr. Sherman 
stated it in the speech from which I have read, and because from 
that day until this that truth has been made more and more 
strong, that I felt in dealing with this question at this time we 
had a right to recognize that government, and that it was our 
duty to recognize that government. I think it was unfortunate 
that we did not recognize it, but it may not be as unfortunate as 
I imagined, for I think quickly, speedily, possibly even now, on 
the very day when the ultimatum has been sent to Spain pursu- 
ant to the resolutions that passed here, this Government has prac- 
tically recognized the Republic of Cuba, and I think possibly it 
is true — we will all know it by to-morrow morning — that that 
government is to-day being officially dealt with by the official 
representatives of this Government, as it should be. 

Mr. HOAR (in his seat). That has probably happened. 

Mr. FORAKER. The Senator from Massachitsetts made a re- 
mark which I did not hear. 

Mr. HOAR. I beg the Senator's pardon; I did not intend to 
interrupt him. I exclaimed what was simply in my mind, with- 
out being conscious myself that I spoke. What I said was what 
the Senator is now saying and what I said some time ago would 
probably happen. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes; I have no doubt the Senator predicted 
this, for he has been talking along this line, as I recollect, at vari- 
ous times. The only difference between the Senator and myself 
was as to when the recognition should come. 

Mr. HOAR. And as to the question of constitutional power. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have no trouble about constitutional power. 
I want to say to the Senator with respect to that question that 
every time he refers to it he talks about it as though it was a set- 
tled and established fact beyond all controversy that recognition 
is exclusively an Executive function. 

Mr. HOAR. The Senator will pardon me. He said the only dif- 
ference between him and me was what he stated, to which I added, 
"and the question of constitutional power," on which we also dif- 
fered. I did not mean to make any affirmation about it except to 
state the fact of our difference. 
3254 . 



Mr. FORAKER. There is that additional difference. I think 
I have perhaps said heretofore in the Senate, and I want to say- 
again, that I do not at all agree with the Senator from IMassachn- 
setts that the recognition of either independence or belligerency 
is an exclusively Executive function. I want to say further that 
every time tliat question has been raised here in Congress, and it 
has been raised repeatedly, Congress has always contended that 
it had a right to participate at least with the Executive in all 
questions determining our foreign policy, including questions of 
recognition of belligerency and recognition of independence. 

But if the Senator from Colorado will pardon me just one min- 
ute further, I wish to say a word in answer to the suggestion of 
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] the other evening that 
the proposition to recognize the independence of the Cuban Govern- 
ment had been as he thought injected into this debate merely for 
purposes of discord. I do not think the Senator could have been 
very deliberate in his consideration of this subject when he made 
that statement. I perhaps have a special right to answer that 
question in view of the fact that I introduced that proposition in 
the resoliitions which I offered in the Senate, and which have now 
in substance, except as to one i^roposition. been adopted. 

The resolutions that I introduced contained four propositions. 
One was that the people of the Island of Cuba are free and inde- 
pendent. That has been adopted. Another was that this Govern- 
ment should recognize the Republic of Cuba as the true and lawful 
government of that island. The third was that by reason of the 
character of that war, in its results upon our commerce and be- 
cause of the humanitarian question involved, it was the duty of 
this Government to demand that Spain should at once abandon 
the island. The fourth proposition was that the President should 
be authorized and directed to carry these resolutions into effect. 
Tlaree of these propositions have been accepted. The- one in re- 
gard to the recognition of the republic was stricken out in the 
way all are familiar with. I liad no thought of discord when 1 
introduced that proposition. I was familiar with this record. I 
supposed it was a conceded fact that they had at least a de facto 
government in the Island of Cuba known as the Republic of Cuba. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio will sus- 
pend for a moment. The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, it is 
the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate the unfinished busi- 
ness. 

Mr. MILLS. I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished busi- 
ness may be laid aside informally. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas will 
allow the Chair to have the unfinished business stated. 

Mr. MILLS. Certainly. 

The Secretary. A bill (S. 2680) amending " An act granting 
additional quarantine powers and imposing additional duties upon 
the Marine-Hospital Service.'' approved February 10, 1893. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas asks 
unanimous consent that the iinfinished business be temT>orarily 
laid aside. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The Sen- 
ator from Ohio will proceed. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, I have only a word or two 
more to say. I supposed it was a conceded fact, conceded by 
everybody, 'that there was siich a government as the Republic of 
Cuba. I supposed all were familiar with this record, and I sup- 

3251 



ic 0- 



posed surely it v/as a conceded fact on the part of the Adminis- 
tration, the present Administration, when the present Secretary 
of State acting here as a Senator had employed the language 
which I have quoted. 

Furthermore, as an answer to the suggestion that this proposi- 
tion was introduced for purposes of discord, I will state that be- 
fore the jiroposition was introduced here I talked with the Presi- 
dent in regard to it. I showed him the resolution, and while he 
had some concern as to the form of it, I did not understand that 
he had any objection to it on principle. With me it was only a 
question as to the particular time when that resolution or some- 
thing else like it shovild be introduced. Events came quickly, one 
thing following after another, and it seemed to me after the Maine 
report was in that the way was clear for some action to be taken, 
and that that was an appropriate time to introduce the resolu- 
tion, and I introduced it. 

That resolution was introduced at a time when it was being 
given out through the press, and I suppose it was at least a semi- 
official announcement, that the President had notified Spain as a 
condition precedent to everything else which might be agreed 
upon that there should be on the part of Spain a recognition of 
the absolute independence of the people of the Island of Cuba. 
That was given out, I supposed, with authority. We were made 
to understand in our committee that that condition precedent had 
been made, and I had no idea that in introducing my resolutions 
I was not in harmony with at least the general purposes of the 
Administration with respect to this question. And so it was I had 
no thought or purpose to create any discord, but was only intend- 
ing and purposing to discharge, according to my conviction, what 
I conceived to be a very grave, important, and responsible duty. 

That resolution was introduced, injecting that proposition into 
this controversy, I do not recall now how many days, but a week 
or ten days before the President's message came in. I supposed 
that when we received the President's message we would be ad- 
vised that a recognition on the part of Spain of the independence 
of Cuba had been insisted upon. I was forced to conclude when 
the message was read that that demand had not been made; other- 
wise surely the President would have made some mention of it. 

A day or two later, however, I saw in a newspaper what I under- 
stood to be a semiofficial statement that such a telegram had been 
prepared, and that after it had left the hands of the President, 
upon being revised by the Attorney-General, he had taken the 
liberty to strike out the word "independent" and insert in lieu of 
it the word "stable." But even that statement showed that the 
recognition of an independent government there was in harmony 
with the ideas of the President. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. 
Thurston] has just now kindly handed me the newspaper article 
to which 1 have referred, and I will read it in order that it may 
appear in the Record in connection with the remarks I have just 
been making. It is taken from the Washington Post. It is en- 
titled ''Why independence was omitted." 

It became knowii yesterday why indopendeuco was omitted from the mes- 
sage. When President McKinloy first made his propositions to the Spanish 
Government, he aunonnced that the war must cease in Cuba and an inde- 
pendent sovornment be established. This disjiatch was changed by Attor- 
ney-General Grifrgs to read "stable government," which, it was claimed, 
w.is the dii)lomatio phrase for the independence desired. When Minister 
■VS oodford submitted that dispatch to the Spanish prime minister, he was 
j>.sl£ed if "stable government " meant independent government, and at once 



replied in the negative, assuring Seiior SagJista that the United States looked 
oaly to a system of self government like the Canadians enjoy. 

Afterwards, believing that he might have made a mistake. Mr. Woo.iford 
cabled the President as to the intention of this Government, and was promptly 
informed that the word "stable" must be interpreted '-independent." Aa 
all suggestions for independence had caused much indignation and resistance 
on the part of the Spanish Government, Minister Woodford feared to mate 
his demand, and, as a matter of fact, the ultimatum for indep)endence was 
never officially laid before Spain, Mr. Woodford believing that it would Ix? a 
constant irritation and menace in what might follow. He repeatedly sug- 
gested it to Senor Sagasta in private as being the view of the President, but 
as it had never been submitted in writing, the President had to omit it from 
the message. This is the explanation semiofficially made of the President's 
message. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Mi-. President, may I a.sk the Senator from 
Oiiio a question? 
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

JMi-. CHANDLER. He having read the newspaper statement as 
to this diplomatic correspondence, 1 ask him whether the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Relations, before it made its report to the Sen- 
ate recommending the resolutions which have passed, knew what 
the diplomatic correspondence actually was, or were the members 
of the committee obliged to take it from a newspaper; and did 
they take it from the newspaper slip which the Senator from Ne- 
braska has just handed to the Senator from Ohio to refresh his 
recollection as to what the diplomatic correspondence was? 

Mr. FORAKER. Answering the Senator from New Hampshire, 
I will state that the Committee on Foreign Relations has never 
been advised as to what the diplomatic correspondence is, except 
only a statement has been generally made of the character I have 
already stated, that the demand of this Government was a recog- 
nition on the part of Spain of the independence of Cuba. 
Mr. ALLISON (in his seat). That demand was made. 

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. President 

Mr. TILLMAN. May I ask the Senator from Ohio a question? 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from Kentucky? 

Mr. FORAKER. I want the statement just made by the Sena- 
tor from Iowa [Mr. Allison] first to go upon the record. I un- 
derstand the Senator from Iowa to say now that the demand was 
made, but, if he will pardon me, I would rather he would make 
it in his own way. 

Mr. ALLISON. Although I have no authority to say so, as I 
have not conversed with anvbody who has heard it stated, I under- 
stand there is no question of the fact that that demand was made 
of Spain; that it was sent to the Spanish Government and a copy 
of it was sent to the Spanish minister in this city. 

Mr. HALE. That is, that the intervention of the President 
should be to the end that an independent government should be 
established: not that the so- claimed government of the insurgents 
should be recognized, but that the intervention of this Govern- 
ment should be to the end that an independent government should 
be established. I suppose the Senator does not think that the 
demand was put in the form of Spain being required to recognize 
the insurgent government. 

Mr. PASCO. I wish to suggest to the Senator from Iowa to be 
a little more clear in stating just exactly what that demand was, 
because his language is indefinite. 

Mr. ALLISON. One can not be very clear when he is giving 
hearsay evidence. Therefore I only intimated to the Senator 

3254 



^ r 



6 

from Ohio that I had learned from sources which I considered 
reliable that in the course of this correspondence the President 
did say to the Spanish Government that there must be an inde- 
pendent government in Cuba; and that demand was submitted 
not only to the Spanish Government in Madrid, but a copy of it 
was sent to the minister here. Perhaps I ought not to say this in 
public debate, but so iinderstanding tlie fact, I did say so to the 
Senator from Ohio in my seat. As I do not speak in this matter 
except, as I state, from hearsay, I can be no more definite in my 
statement than I have been. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa 
yield to the Senator from South Carolina? 

Mr. TILLMAN. I should like to ask the Senator from Iowa or 
the Senator from Maine, or anyone else here who is expected to 
be the mouthpiece of the Administration on this subject, to an- 
swer this question: Is it the rule of the President to allow the 
Attorney-General to change a word in his dispatch to a foreign 
government without his consent, and is it the rule of the ministers 
sent abroad by the United States to refuse to deliver the dispatches 
that are sent to them? 

Mr. HALE. I do not consider this to be a very important con- 
troversy just now; I do not think the Senator from Ohio does. 

Mr. FORAKER. No; I do not, so far as the matter itself is con- 
cerned. 

Mr. HALE. It is not claimed by anybody, whatever the dis- 
patch was. that it originally was intended to be a recognition of 
the so-called government of the insurgents, but it was a proposi- 
tion that this country would intervene to the end that there should 
be in Cuba a free and independent government. 

Mr. TILLMAN. From whom does the Senator from Maine get 
that? Out of the air? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will please address the 
Cliair. 

Mr. HALE. The Senator from Ohio has followed this matter 
very closely. I do not suppose the Committee on Foreign Rela- 
tions claims that that original dispatch, before it was at all al- 
tered, if altered by the Attorney-General, covered the proposition 
that Spain was to recognize that particular government, but that 
we should establish there a free and independent government. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President. I never heard of the proposi- 
tion that we were to establish any kind of a government in Cuba 
until we got the message of the President. What I heard, what 
we all heard, in so far as I have any information, was this: That 
the President was diplomatically negotiating through our minister, 
Woodford, with the Government of Spain, and that in the course 
of those negotiations he had instructed the minister to make cer- 
tain demands, and that he had made a condition precedent to 
everything else the absolute recognition of the independence of 
the people of Cuba. That is the way it came to me. I have not 
seen the correspondence; I do not know what it would disclose. 
We would be glad to see it if we coiild. 

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from Kentucky? 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will pardon me just a moment 
until I add another sentence, I will state why I have dwelt upon 



.a 



^ 



it. I want to malie it appear, by snowing these facts, that at the 
time when this proposition was incorporated in these resolutions, 
and when they were subsetiuently insisted npon, there was no 
thought thereby of creating any discord. On the conti-ary, we 
thought we were doing exactly what it wonhl be the purpose of 
this Government to do, for I will confess frankly that it never oc- 
curred to me that if we were to recognize the independence of the 
people of Cuba, we would deny recognition to that political or- 
ganization under the direction and control of which that inde- 
pendence had been achieved. I supposed the republic would be 
recognized, as a matter of course, if we declared that the people 
of the island were free and independent, and it was not an idle 
purpose we had in putting that into the resolutions. 

The reason may not have been valid for it, but my idea was a 
very simple one. I thought if we recognized the independenco 
of the people of Cuba, as we do in the first paragraph, and I 
thought we were entitled to do it, according to the principles of 
international law applicable, we thereby at once changed the 
legal status of the people of Cuba from that of subjects of Spain 
to inhabitants of that island. That was highly important if we 
were to have war, for when we make war on Spain we make war 
on all her subjects everywhere. I am sure I did not want to make 
war on the Cubans, even technically. Then I had this further 
purpose. When I drafted the resolution and put the second propo- 
sition in, that we would recognize the Republic of Cuba as the 
true and lawful goverament of the island, it occurred to me, as I 
undertook to set forth in the remarks I made the other day, that 
if we went down there and intermeddled, to use an international 
law term, in the affairs of another people, and drove the Spanish 
Government out and set up a government of our own, and failed 
to recognize the government that was there, we at least ran a 
serious risk of being liable for the debts for which the revenues 
of that island have been pledged. 

I have never seen the form of that pledge; I have never seen 
the legislation whereby those revenues were pledged: I have been 
unable to get it, although I have tried to get it. Therefore I do 
not know what the exact facts are, but I have seen it stated over 
and over again, without any contradiction, that by the Kingdom of 
Spain the revenues from the Island of Cuba have been pledged to the 
payment of a certain indebtedness, at least the interest. It seemed 
to me that we ran a risk of becoming liable for that indebtedness, 
and it not occurring to me that there was any objection upon 
principle to the recognition of the Republic of Cuba, but it occur- 
ring to me that by that recognition we could shut the door against 
that possible liabilitv. I thought it was wise to insert tliat propo- 
sition. That is alfthere wasof it, and all this talk which has 
since arisen about a combination between Democrats and certain 
Republicans at the instigation of Mr. Bryan is entirely without 
any foundation, so far as I am aware. 

I have never had the good fortune to so much as even see Mr. 
Bryan. I never saw him to know him, at least. I have no ac- 
quaintance with him. I never had any communication with him 
directly or indirectly on this subject or any other. 

I have acted in this matter, Mr. President, from the begmning 
without a thought that partisan politics would at any stage become 
a feature of the controversy. I have felt that it was not a political 
question. It is a question, it is true, with respect to which pohti- 

£254 



L>M- 



8 

cal parties have made declarations; but the true interpretation of 
the declarations which have been made in the party platforms 
would make them all mean practically one and the same thing. 

Therefore, in dealing with the subject, I have had no thought 
with respect to any of my colleagues to stop and consider and in- 
quire whether they were Populists, Democrats, or Republicans. 
I have felt this was a great national question, a great interna- 
tional question, a question in dealing with which we should re- 
member, not that we are Democrats or Populists, or Free Silver 
Republicans, or stalwart and tmqualified Republicans, but only 
that we are Americans — Americans all. 

I have sought to deal with the matter in that spirit. I intend 
to go on dealing with it in that spirit, 1 liave no feeling of hos- 
tility toward anybody who has a duty to discharge with respect 
to it. The duties of the President have been of the most serious 
and grave character. I think he has in the discharge of them un- 
dertaken, according to his best judgment, to do his whole dutj*. 
He may have made mistakes. I do not know who has the right to 
say whether he has made mistakes or not; but it may be that with 
respect to this matter he has perhaps not done exactly as others 
might have done if they had been in his place, but only time can 
tell whether the President has made a mistake or whether, if oth- 
ers had been in his place and had acted differently, they would 
have made a mistake. 

Let us, instead of cavilling about these matters and trying to 
draw party lines, remember that this is a question with respect 
to which we should try to be united; and it was because it was a 
question of that character that I was willing, after I had done my 
full duty in an effort to get a recognition of the Republic of Cuba, 
to abandon that proposition in the interest of harmony, and to 
secure an agreement and pass the resolutions. 

That is all I care to say, Mr. President. 
S2o4 



^c 



cT 



OUR WAR WITH SPAIN 
Its Justice and Necessity 

(^From The Forum, June, i8g8) 
BY 

HON. J. B. FORAKER 



The United States aud Spain are at war with each other. 
The fact is deplorable ; and who is to blame for it is an im- 
portant question. This question cannot be properly an- 
swered without a more extended review of the relations of 
Spain and the United States to Cuba, and of the character 
of the war which Spain has been waging there, than can be 
given in a magazine article. Enough may be said, how- 
ever, to indicate all this sufficiently for present purposes. 

The Island of Cuba has belonged to Spain, with the right 
to determine its government. It was the duty of Spain, 
however, to provide a just government, and the right of the 
Cubans to seek their independence, whether the government 
provided by Spain was just or unjust. People have a right 
to be independent and to govern themselves if they so de- 
sire ; and it is no answer to say that they are already well gov- 
erned. But when they are unjustly governed and griev- 
ously oppressed this right is accentuated, and their struggle 
for freedom and self-government naturally and properly 
commands sympathy as well as respect. Such would be 
the views of the United States with regard to any case, but 
especially so with respect to Cuba. That island lies at our 
door. It belongs to the Western Hemisphere. It is a part 
of the American system. The Monroe Doctrine covers and 



>• 



1 1 



applies to it. On this account no other nation would be 
allowed by us to interpose in its affairs. England, France, 
Germany and the other powers so understand. The result 
is that, whatever responsibility may arise for other nations 
in respect to the progress of events in Cuba, it is all our 
own. Our relation is special, and our duty is special. With 
these premises in mind, consider what has happened in 
Cuba. 

The government of the Island by Spain has been, for the 
last fifty years, of the most arbitrar}^ unjust, oppressive, and 
inefficient character. The inhabitants have been practicallj'- 
denied all voice and representation in their affairs ; their 
taxes have been out of all proportion to their ability to pay ; 
and they have been allowed no substantial returns therefor. 
Educational facilities have been grossly inadequate ; there 
have been no public improvements, not even ordinary high- 
ways, scarcely more than a pretence of the most ordinary 
sanitation, and no sufficient protection to either life or prop- 
erty ; and yet the revenues exacted in recent years have 
amounted to about $25,000,000 to $28,000,000 annually. 
When it is recalled that the total population of the Island, 
including all classes and nationalities, Cubans, Spaniards, 
Negroes, together with Americans, Europeans, and other for- 
eigners, is but one and one-half millions, most of them very 
poor, it will be seen how enormously disproportionate the 
burden is ; but it is not until the details of the system of 
taxation enforced are considered that its insufferable charac- 
ter is made fully manifest. 

In addition to heavy taxation upon all classes of real and 
personal property, the inhabitants are subjected to special 
taxes and license fees of every character and description. 
They are taxed upon each window, upon each pane of glass 
in each window, upon each chimney, and upon each door. 
Every note, check, bill, draft, receipt, deed, mortgage, or 



other paper-writin;:; is taxed ; and so is every kind of 
occupation, privilege, right, franchise, and business trans- 
action, even to the entering of a name upon a hotel register. 
All appeals for relief have been denied ; and instead of 
showing mercy and help, Spain has grown steadily more 
heartless, indifferent, and exacting. Her penal law^s have 
been enforced with a cruelty that can scarcely be exaggerated. 
Executions, banishments, imprisonments, fines, and forfeit- 
ures have been appallingly frequent and terrifying in 
character. Our fathers rebelled for just cause in 1776 : the 
Cubans have a thousand times better cause then they had. 

In addition, therefore, to the inherent right of independ- 
ence, the Cuban struggle is a rebellion against tyranny, 
oppression, robbery, and wrong greater than has ever been 
endured by any people capable of resistance, and of such a 
nature as to command the profound sympathy of all who 
love justice and liberty. It is impossible for any fair and 
jtroperly informed mind to have the slightest sympathy 
with Spain in her effort to subdue the insurrection, no mat- 
ter how fairly she may conduct the war in that behalf. 

But her wretched government of the Island was but a 
fitting prelude to the atrocious war that has followed. It 
has from the beginning been marked with unusual waste, 
destruction, savagery, and disregard of the rules of civilized 
warfare ; but the climax in this chapter of wickedness was 
reached when the policy of " reconcentration " was entered 
upon. The President, in his annual message of December 
6, 1897, justly characterized it as a policy of extermination. 
Such it was ; and such it was intended to be. The order 
inaugurating this policy was promulgated by General Wey- 
ler on February 16, 1897 ; but it had been doubtless pre- 
viously approved — as it was subsequently and repeatedly — 
by the Spanish Government. It required the pacificos to 
forsake their homes, and the peaceful pursuits whereby 



they were supporting themselves, and be concentrated in 
the outskirts of the cities, towns and villages, where men, 
women, and children were huddled together under military 
guard, thousands in a place, with a monstrous inadequacy 
of food, clothing, shelter, and sanitary conditions. The 
evident purpose was the natural result. In one year more 
than two hundred thousand of the victims perished, and 
more than two hundred thousand others were brought so 
near to death that most of them will not recover. 

The immeasurable inhumanity of this proceeding is not 
fully appreciated until it is remembered that these people, 
who were thus deliberately tortured to death, were the sub- 
jects of Spain, — not one of them had ever raised a hand 
against her, — who, whatever their sympathies may have 
been, remained loyal to the Crown, and were entitled to its 
protection. They were not insurgents, but pacificos ; not 
enemies, but citizens ; not a disturbing element, but a quiet, 
peaceful, law-abiding, and self-supporting peasantry, who 
had done no wrong to anybody. In all the history of the 
world there is nothing that approaches their treatment in 
unprovoked fiendishness and sickening horror. Day after 
day, for week after week and month after month, the awful 
story of anguish, misery, and death, with its shocking 
details, was told to our Government by our faithful Consu- 
lar officials in Cuba. When that correspondence is pub- 
lished, and all the facts are made known, it will excite the 
wonder of Christendom that we should have endured such 
conditions so long and so patiently. 

There are other facts to be taken into account in judging 
the course and final action of the United States. When the 
war was commenced there were many American citizens 
residing in Cuba, and engaged in business there. They 
owned more than fifty millions' worth of property, all which 
has been practically destroyed without fault on their part. 



Many of them have been arrested, imprisoned, and subjected 
to gross hardships and indignities, and some of them, like 
Dr. Ruiz, have been brutally murdered, all in violation of 
treaty rights ; and, although thereunto duly requested, 
Spain has evaded and denied every demand for reparation, 
or even apology, whether for property, liberty, or life. 

When the war commenced we had a trade with Cuba 
amounting to about $100,000,000 annually. This trade 
has been destroyed. 

The American people naturally sympathize with all who 
struggle for liberty and independence, but especially with 
those who are of this hemisphere and our immediate 
neighbors. The struggle of the Cubans has been so heroic, 
and against such odds and wrongs, that it has excited the 
greatest interest and admiration. It has also produced corre- 
sponding disquiet among our people, and has made necessary 
a constant, heavy expense, amounting to several millions of 
dollars in the aggregate, in order to police our coasts and, in 
the interest of Spain, enforce our neutrality laws. It would be 
unreasonable to expect us to submit indefinitely to such 
burdens and to such injuries to our citizens and their busi- 
ness. We had a right, therefore, to seek to bring about a 
termination of the struggle. We were an interested party. 
Our interest was second only to that of Spain. Therefore, 
on April 6, 1896, we tendered our friendly offices to Spain 
as a mediator. She rejected them, and the war continued. 
This tender was renewed bv President McKinlev, and with 
the same result. 

At length Canovas was assassinated and Sagasta came 
into power. The latter recognized our interest and our 
right to relief. He also recognized and acknowledged that 
the policy of Spain should be reversed. He accordingly 
promised to institute all proper reforms, both in the prose- 
cution of the war and in the civil government of the Island, 



6 

and asked that he be given a reasonable time in which to 
carry his reforms into effect. It was accorded him but there 
was no reform, nor au}' change for the better. On the con- 
trary, the cause of Spain grew day by day more helpless 
and desperate, until all reasonable hope or expectation of 
success was gone ; while the cause of the insurgents corre- 
spondingly improved. Autonomy was a failure, starvation 
went on, waste and desolation continued, and all to no 
purpose. 

It became difficult for us to maintain friendly relations 
with Spain. Finally, to relieve the tension and bring about 
a belter feeling, the " Maine " was sent to Havana, and 
Spain was invited to send one of her sliips to New York. 
When the "Maine" reached Havana she was taken in 
charge by a Spanish official, the Harbor Pilot, and hj him 
stationed at a place where, without warning, she, with two 
hundred and sixty-six of her officers and crew, was blown 
up and destroyed by a submarine mine. Submarine mines 
are acknowledged governmental implements of war. They 
are not at any time handled by private individuals ; and 
at the time and place in question, it was a crime punish- 
able by death for any person to be found even in possession 
of any kindof an explosive. These considerations make it a 
very strong primw facie case — almost conclusive — that the 
" Maine " was blown up purposely, and by Spanish officials ; 
for it is manifest, as stated by Gen. Lee in his evidence be- 
fore the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that no novice 
exploded the mine, but a skilled expert who possessed not 
only all the facts as to its location and mechanism, but the 
requisite technical knowledge as well. 

Spain recognized the case against her, and sought to 
escape liability. She disavowed the affair, and undertook 
to prove her innocence. She might have proved that there 
were no mines in Havana harbor if such had been the fact, 



for she had full control of all the evidence on the subject. 
She could have called whom she pleased, but she took no 
testimony on that point. All her efforts were in one direc- 
tion — that of showing that the explosion w^as within the 
ship, and an accident. Her Naval Board of Inquiry so 
found. One fact, conclusively established by our Board of 
Inquiry, destroys this finding. The bottom of the ship 
was blown upward, and was found bent from beneath into 
the shape of an inverted V. No such result could have 
been produced by an explosion from within ; this is self-evi- 
dent. It completely destroys the accident theory, and with 
it the only defence that Spain has sought to make, or ever 
can make. In view of this it is wholly immaterial what 
particular person or persons pressed the button that ex- 
ploded the mine. The commanding fact remains that our 
ship and sailors were destroyed by a governmental agency 
of war, for which Spain was as much responsible as she was 
for the guns in her forts. It therefore follows that not only 
the act of destruction, but also the act of placing us in dan- 
ger without warning, was an act of war, and we would have 
been justified in opening fire on Morro Castle the moment 
we found the keel plates on the deck of the ship. But we 
did not do so. We did what scarcely any other nation would 
have done. We waited nearly two months for an official 
report, and then the President politely submitted all these 
criminating facts to Spain and asked her what she would do 
about them ; not doubting, to use his own language, " that 
the sense of justice of the Spanish Nation will dictate a 
course of action suggested by honor and the friendly rela- 
tions of the two governments." 

If there was any definite suggestion in this sentence it 
was, at the most, a prolonged diplomatic controversy 
resulting ultimately in an international arbitration ; and 
that was not satisfactory. Hence, it was that at tliis point 



r 



8 

patience seemed to be exhausted, and the Congress gave 
unmistakable evidence that diplomatic negotiations must 
cease, and some kind of decisive action be taken to end the 
war, stop starvation, give the Cubans their independence, 
and suitably avenge the " Maine. " Numerous resolutions 
were introduced, and were referred to appropriate commit- 
tees. All were given careful consideration ; but no action 
was taken until the President, in his message of April 11, 
submitted his views and made his recommendations. He 
traced the course of events in Cuba, gave an account of 
his negotiations with Spain, told how he had exhausted 
diplomacy without avail, and, therefore, committed the 
whole subject to the Congress for such action as it might see 
fit to take. His recommendation was as follows : 

" I ask the Congress to authorize and empower the Presi- 
dent to take measures to secure a full and final termination 
of hostililies between the Government of Spain and the 
people of Cuba, and to secure in the Island the establish- 
ment of a stable government, capable of maintaining order, 
and of observing its international obligations, insuring peace 
and tranquillity, and the security of its citizens as well as 
our OW'U and to use the military and naval forces of the 
United States as may be necessary for these purposes." 

Upon this presentation of the case, as well as upon all 
this painful history and these influencing facts, relations, 
and doctrines, the Congress finally, on April 18, 1898, 
adopted the following resolutions : 

" First. That the people of the Island of Cuba are, and 
of right ought be, free and independent. 

"Second. That it is the duty of the United States to 
demand, and the Government of the United States does 
hereby demand, that the Government of Spain at once 
relinquish its autliority and government in the Island of 
Cuba and withdraw its laud and naval forces from Cuba 
and Cuban waters. 

" Third. That the President of the United States be, and 



X 



7- 



he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land 
and naval forces of the United States, and to call into the 
actual service of the United States the militia of the several 
States, to such extent as may be necessary to carry these 
resolutions into effect. 

" Fourth, That the United States hereby disclaims any 
disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction 
or control over said island, except for the pacification there- 
of, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, 
to leave the government and control of the island to its 
people." 

Was such action justifiable? In answering this question 
it is not necessary to discuss what was not done further than 
may be necessary in order to throw light on the grounds 
for what was done. 

There were many who believed that a declaration of war 
on account of the " Maine" was the simplest, most justifi- 
able and most logical action to take ; but they were over- 
ruled. 

There were many who thought that the whole subject 
should be recommitted to the President, as he had recom- 
mended, with power to take such measures as he might 
deem necessary to end the war, and to establish a stable 
government in the island, using the army and navy there- 
for if necessary ; but they also were overruled. 

It was the majority sentiment that (1) there should not 
be any further diplomatic negotiations ; (2) that it was not 
competent for the Congress to delegate the war-making 
power to the President, to be used at his discretion in a 
certain contingency, to-wit, the failure of further negotia- 
tions ( " measures " ) ; and (3) that the Congress was with- 
out power to establish a government in a foreign country 
for a foreign people, " stable " or otherwise, and that it 
could not empower the President to do so, and that it would 
not be good policy to do so, if it could. 



10 

For these and other reasons, the President's recommenda- 
tion in these particulars was not followed ; and, instead, 
the resolutions already quoted were adopted. 

On the grounds cited in the preamble — which is an epi- 
tomized statement of the whole case — the Congress, by the 
second and third resolutions adopted, demanded that Spain 
at once relinquish her authority, and withdraw her land 
and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and em- 
powered and directed the President to use the land and 
naval forces, if necessary, to carry the resolutions into 
effect. 

It will be observed that these resolutions cut off all fur- 
ther negotiations. Their mere passage was the demand. 
In the event of refusal by Spain to withdraw, they left no 
room for discretion. The President was directed and 
empowered in such case to employ, at once, the army and 
navy in the enforcement of the demand. The resolutions 
had the merit of brevity, explicitness, and unquestioned 
validity. No exercise of any doubtful or indefinite author- 
ity or power was provided for. The beginning and ending 
of the whole matter was the immediate expulsion of the 
Spaniards from Cuba. The door was shut against all fur- 
ther propositions of meditation or intervention looking to 
autonomy, or the continued sovereignty of Spain in the 
Island on any terms. The resolutions meant the absolute 
and unqualified independence of the Cubans, with the 
right to establish their own government without let or hin- 
drance from us or anybody else ; and they saved us from 
the perils and responsibilities of establishing a govern- 
ment. That whole subject was left in the hands of the 
people to whom it belongs. Consistent with all this was 
the fourth resolution, disclaiming all intentions of acquisi- 
tion, and the first resolution, declaring that the people are, 
and of right ought to be, free and independent. 



11 

The first resolution was of the higliest importance, and 
was accordingly made the subject of much earnest discus- 
sion. The chief insistence of those who opposed it was, 
however, simply that it declared what was not true. In 
this behalf they claimed, in all possible forms of speech, 
that war was still in progress in the Island; that the 
Spanish army still occupied the fortified cities and all the 
seaports ; and that if the Cubans were already free and in- 
independent, it would not be necessary for us to intervene. 
To all this it was answered that a people could be free and 
independent, in the international sense, without having ex- 
clusive control of all their country ; and that the presence 
of an enemy in the midst of them was not a test. At the 
close of the Franco-Prussian war the German army occupied 
Paris ; but nobody ever thouglitof denying that the French 
people were internationally free and independent on that 
account. Similarly it was argued that though the people 
of Cuba had not driven the Spaniards out of the Island, 
yet tliey had resisted the Spanish arms successfully, that 
Spain was no longer attended with a reasonable hope or ex- 
pectation of success in her effort to regain her lost sover- 
eignty, and that our whole proceeding was based on the 
theory that Spain, by her misgovernment and bad conduct, 
had forfeitefl, not only her sovereignty, but also lier right 
to regain it ; for which reason we were proposing to drive 
her out. The effect of that would be to leave the Cubans 
free ; for, if Spain had lost authority, there was none in the 
Island, except such as the Cubans might impose upon 
themselves — all of which was only another way of saying 
that they were free and independent. It was further in- 
sisted that if, according to the requirements of international 
law in ordinary cases, there was anything lacking to make 
the Cubans internationally free and independent it was 
supidied by the resolutions to be passed, because, by those 



12 



resolutions, intervention was provided for ; and that meant 
the unquestioned freedom and independence of Cuba to 
all who believed in our success. If Spain should retire on 
demand, the case was clear ; if she remained to fight, the 
result was the same in practical effect, although for a time 
postponed ; while the legal effect would occur immediately, 
so far as we were concerned, because we should be com- 
pelled to recognize the insurgents as our natural allies and 
co-operate with them, and we could not do that, and 
at the same time continue to treat with them as Spanish 
subjects. 

A further argument was based on the fact that the armed 
intervention proposed was regarded as of such nature that 
if Spain refused to abdicate, war would immediately follow, 
and a declaration to that effect would be necessary, as proved 
to be the case ; but that a declaration of war against Spain 
would be a declaration of war against all her subjects every- 
where. The people of Cuba, including the insurgents, were 
Spanish subjects in law, and would remain so in our view, 
as well as that of Spain and the rest of the world, until we 
recognized their independence. A declaration of war against 
Spain therefore would be a declaration of war against the 
Cubans as well as everybody else belonging to Spain ; and 
consequently, as a war measure and as one of the necessities 
of the case, at least the people of Cuba should be recognized 
as independent. This view prevailed. It prevailed because 
it was justified by the facts, and was made necessary as a 
collateral proposition by the chief proposition of interven- 
tion. Independence must go hand in hand with interven- 
tion. 

For the same reasons, as well as others, the Republic of 
Cuba should have been recognized as the true and lawful 
government of the Island. The progress of events will not 
only make this manifest, but will shortly compel such recog- 



^-7^, 



13 

nition, practically, if not formally. The chief objection 
was stated by the President, as follows : 

" In case of intervention our conduct would be subject to 
the apjiroval or disapproval of such government. We 
would be required to submit to its direction and to assume 
to it the mere relation of a friendly ally." 

A complete answer to this suggestion, in the minds of 
those who favored such recognition, was found in the fact 
that, according to all international-law writers, an interven- 
ing Power never takes orders from anybody, and in the fur- 
ther fact that the whole situation w^as of such a character as 
emphatically to negative the idea that the Cuban Republic, 
or General Gomez, would embarrass us by the assertion of any 
such right. This is all that need be said upon that point 
now. In this way the question narrowed itself down to 
whether or not we were justified, under all the circumstances, 
in demanding that Spain retire from Cuba, and, upon her 
refusal, in proceeding to eject her by force of arms. 

The general rule established by international law is non- 
intervention ; but the exceptions to this rule have been so 
often repeated, and on such various grounds, that interven- 
tion has become a well recognized right, if not in some 
instances, an acknowledged obligation. 

Prof. Lawrence, in his admirable work on " The Princi- 
ples of International Law," after discussing the right of 
intervention on the ground of self-interest, says, witli special 
reference to cruelties on account of religion : 

" Should the cruelty be so long-continued and so revolting 
that the best instincts of human nature are outraged by it, 
and should an opportunity arise for bringing it to an end 
and removing its cause without adding fuel to the flame of 
the contest, there is nothing in the law of nations which 
will condemn, as a wrongdoer, the state which steps forward 
and undertakes the necessary intervention. Each case 
must be judged on its own merits. * * * j have no 



7 



14 

right to enter my neighbor's garden without his consent ; 
but, if I saw a child of his robbed and ill treated in it by 
a tramp, I should throw ceremony to the winds, and rush to 
the rescue without waiting to ask permission." (P. 120.) 

In concluding his discussion of the subject, Lawrence 
says : 

" They (Nations) should intervene very sparingly, and 
only on the clearest grounds of justice and necessit}' ; but 
when they do intervene, they should make it clear to all 
concerned that their voice must be attended to and their 
wishes carried out." (P. 135.) 

All authorities are to the same general effect. 

Applying these rules, the war in C'uba has been of 
long duration. It is more than three years now since it 
commenced ; and the present is but a resumption and con- 
tinuation of the ten years' war that ended by the treaty of 
Zanjon in 1878. The struggle has been attended by unus- 
ual cruelties from the beginning ; and the one feature of 
international extermination by starvation of the unoffending 
non-combatants, to the number of hundreds of thousands, 
is so inhuman and shocking, and has been now so long con- 
tinued that, wdlhout regard to the commercial and property 
interests involved, we have '' the clearest grounds of justice 
and necessity " for intervention ever presented. 

In the language of Historicus, (Letters on Some Ques- 
tions of International Law. — I), it is a case where interven- 
tion is " a high act of policy above and beyond the domain 
of law " — which is the equivalent of saying that it has the 
most sacred sanction of law. 

We were justified, therefore, in intervening ; and it was 
our duty, when we did intervene, adopting the words above 
quoted, to make it clear to all concerned that our voice 
must be attended to and our wishes carried out. The reso- 
lutions authorizing our intervention meet all these require- 



15 

ments, and do not go beyond. We could not do less than 
they propose and do our duty. Under all the circumstances 
we delayed action longer than we should, and have 
been less harsh and exacting than wo might have been. 

Spain lost her sovereignty by her own misrule ; and she 
lost all opportunity to retire with dignity and honor, by 
obstinately refusing the kindest and most generous offers 
of mediation and by failing to heed repeated and unmis- 
takable warnings of the inevitable. She had a legal right 
to treat our intervention as an act of war ; but she had no 
moral right to do so. She has been in the wrong and 
at fault from the beginning. The trouble commenced in 
her own house. She made it a general nuisance, and p^^r- 
sisted in so maintaining it long after she had been notified 
that it had become insufferable. Now, when she has for- 
feited all the respect of others, and all her rights, and when 
ejection has become necessar}^ she resents it as an act of 
war, and appeals to the world for sympathy. So far slie 
has not received a,nj ; and it is to be hoped she will not. 
But, however that may be, our only course was to meet war 
with war. It is a justly dreaded necessity, but not without 
some compensations. The spirit of patriotism that has 
been aroused will stir the life blood of the nation, quicken 
human activities, and efface sectional divisions. Whether 
the struggle bo long or short, we shall emerge from it 
stronger, more united and more respected than ever before. 

J. B. FORAKER, 

April 28, 1898. 



^r. 




'•<S<t>^ 



SUCCESS IN POLITICS. 



BY 



J. B. FORAKER. 

(From Chicago luter Ocean, June 5, 18V»8.) 





Hon. J. B. Foraker. 



Success in Politics. 



Senator Foraker Gives Advice to 
Ambitious Young Men. 



The WinninCx of Fame. 



Honesty and Industry Are Prime 
Requisites in Politics. 



Keeping One's Temper Under the Adversity of 
Defeat Will Always Be a Profitable Feature. 



BY J, B. RORAKEIR. 

I am asked to tell how I came to get into politics; what 
was u\y first political success ; what I would advise young men 
to do who desire to achieve political success ; and whether or 
not I think the rewards of public life are sufficient to justif}- a 
poor man in going into politics. 

I got into politics naturally enough, and yet accidentally 
— at least not purposely. I went into the army in 18(32, when 
but 16 years of age, and before I had completed my education. 
I served three years, until the close of the war, and then, at 
1'.', came lK)me from the excitements of the field and resumed 
my studies. It was a time of great political events. There 
was intense feeling. Great men were on the stage, and great 



4 

questions were engaging attention. We were working out the 
settlements of the war. I naturally took interest in all that 
was occurring, and thus became familiar with politics before 
quitting the academic life. I left school, notwithstanding' 
without any thought of engaging in public affairs. On the 
contrary^ I had a fixed determination to adhere strictly and 
exclusively to the practice of the law. I got along ver}- well 
in that profession until General Grant's second campaign in 
1872. I was his great admirer, and could not resist the temp- 
tation to take the stump and make answer as best I could to 
the fierce charges of various kinds that were made against 
him. This was the putting of the hand to the plow, and there 
was no turning back. 

DEMANDS OF CAMPAIGN WORK. 

The demands for campaign work grew with the 3'ears, 
and before I knew it I was being mentioned favorabl}' in con- 
nection with ofiicial positions, and finally, in April, 1879, I 
had my first personal political success in the shape of an elec- 
tion to the office of Judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati. 
After three years of agreeable official life I became ill, and on 
that account resigned. I quickly regained my health, how- 
ever, and once more engaged in the practice of law. I had no 
thought of returning to public life. I was therefore surprised, 
as well as gratified, when the following year, 1883, I was nom- 
inated for Governor without opposition and by acclamation. 
Since then I have had a very active and at times rather tem- 
pestuous experience. In my first campaign for Governor the 
liquor question was uppermost in the minds of the people, and 
I was defeated, but two years later, in 1885, I was renominated 
and elected. I was re-elected in 1887 and renominated in 1889 
for the fourth time and for a third term and again defeated. 

I was a candidate for United States Senator in 1892, but 
was defeated by Senator Sherman, who received fifty-three 
votes to my thirty-eight. In 189^ I was elected to the Senate 
without Republican opposition. 

I attended the national Republican conventions of 1884, 
1888, 1892, and 189(-), each time as a delegate-at-large, and each 
time chosen by acclamation. In 1884 and again in 1888 I was 



chairman of the Ohio delegation, and both times presented the 
name of Senator Sherman as Ohio's candidate for the Presi- 
dency. In 1892 and again in 1896 I was chairman of the com- 
mittee on resokitions, and as such each time reported the 
national Republican platform to the convention. I also, in 
1896, placed President McKinley's name in nomination. In 
all these years I have taken an active part on the stump, not 
only in Ohio, but also in other states. 

DEFEATS ARE NOT INSURMOUNTABLE. 

I mention all this because I am asked to do so and because 
it will indicate that I have not only had considerable experience, 
but that it has been of a varied character. While I have had 
some succe.sses, I have also had my full share of defeats and 
disappointments. Some of these defeats have been because of 
my own faults and mistakes and some of them because of con- 
ditions and circumstances beyond my control. Defeats generally 
hurt a man, especially when attributable to his own mistakes, but 
they are not insurmountable, even in such cases, when accepted 
uncomplainingly and when they do not involve lack of integ- 
rity or sincerity. The people do not expect or really desire 
perfection, or even a very close approximation to it. I do not 
know but that they like those who now and then show that 
they are flesh and blood by ordinary mistakes of judgment 
better than those who never fail to do exactly the right thing. 
It is the difference between hot blood and cold; impulse and 
calculation. 

Mr. Ford has done a good work by his new book, " The 
True George Washington." He has brought that great char- 
acter with all its worth and sublimity into closer touch with 
mankind. He has established a relationship between Wash- 
ington and the rest of the human family, where, according to 
Weems and most other biographers, there was none, and as a 
result there is a marked increase of affectionate regard and 
admiration for the father of his country. Since we know 
that with all his greatness and goodness he yet had many of 
the shortcomings that afflict other people, we feel much better 
acquainted with him, and look upon him as a more agreeable 
person to meet on the pathway' of life. 



fS 



6 

UPS AND DOWNS OF POLITICS. 

Recurring now to j'our questions, it is upon this kind of 
experience that I would advise a young man to consider well be- 
fore he enters politics. Unless he have aptitude for public affairs 
he is not likely to succeed, and if he have power to succeed he 
must expect all kinds of ups and downs. To-day successful 
and popular, to-morrow defeated and censured ; sometimes 
justly, but more frequently unjustly. To withstand all this he 
must have good nature and the qualities of self-adaptation. 
He must learn that his own personality is not important to 
anybody but himself, and consequently the people do not care 
anything about his grievances. He must keep them to himself. 
When he meets with disappointment he must accept it as all 
right, and be satisfied to abide by it, no matter how permanent 
its consequences may be. If time should enable him to re- 
cover, as it probably will, it will not only be clear gain, but he 
will be stronger than ever, while if he do not recover he is no 
worse off becau.se of keeping his temper. 

I do not think any programme can be outlined for a 
young man, excepting in the most general way. Situations 
are constantly changing, and one is likely to be called upon to 
meet unforseeu exigencies that will turn his career into unex- 
pected directions, but this much a young man can always 
regard as absolutely essential to genuine success in any of the 
important walks or relations of life, public or private ; he must 
be a hard worker. No matter what his intellectual endow- 
ments may be, inv'estigation and preparation will always be 
necessary to the satisfactory discharge of public duty. The 
men who depend upon " natural genius," or upon the " inspi- 
ration of the moment," are not .safe examples to follow. 

And not only must he be diligent, ])ul he must be honest 
and sincere in all he does. Only temporary advantages can be 
attained by a sacrife of these qualities, and they are never 
worth what they cost. There is only one safe rule, and that is 
to stand at all times for honest conviction without equivoca- 
tion or dissembling of any kind. His views ma}' be erroneous, 
or, if correct, they may not prevail, but however that may be, a 
man is strong only when he advocates what he believes. 



Following these ideas a man should attain as high a 
success as his (jualifications may fit him for. Assuming that 
that they are of the best, and that he attains important place 
and high distinction, are the rewards sufficient to justify the 
struggles and the sacrifices involved ? As a general rule they are 
not. The salaries of public officials are inconsequential. They 
are .seldom sufficient to pay expen.ses. The honors are all that 
is left. Nine times out of ten the}' are fleeting and un.satisfac- 
tory. However attractive they maj' appear when far removed 
they almost always dwindle and disappoint on near approach, 
so that if one only had words of appreciation and encourage- 
ment he would be underpaid ; but when instead of words of 
appreciation and encouragement he is criticised, lied about, 
and abused, held up to ridicule, and subjected to detraction 
and disparagement, the reward is poor indeed. And yet men go 
on pursuing these delusive hopes and seeking these unremuner- 
ative rewards. Why, no one can exactly tell, except upon the 
theor}' that hope springs eternal in the human breast. It is 
bad to-day, but it will be better to-morrow. 



I 



*o 



INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN BANK. 



REMARKS 



OF 



HON. JOSEPH B.FORAKER, 



OF OHIO, 



IN THE 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



JUNE 13, 14, AND 16, 1898. 



WASHINOXOM. 

1898. 



^^k 



E E 31 A K K S 



OF 



IIOX. JOSEPH B. FOllAKER. 



June 13, 1S9S. 

The Sonatc. as in Committee of the "Whole, re.'ainied the cousidcratiou of 
the bill I S. :UU i to carry into etTect the recommendations of the International 
American Conferenceby tho incorporation of the International Americau 
Bank. 

Mr. FORAKER said: 

Mr. President: Althongli the Senator froui Alabama [Mr. >\IOR- 
gan] has honored me with a request that I exphxin this bill, I can 
not think it necessary for me to detain the Senate at any very 
great length in doing so. 

This is a measure which has been a long time x)ending in Con- 
gress. It relates to a subject which lias received much and care- 
ful consideration for quite a number of years. In 1888 there was 
called what was known as the Pan-American Congress, which as- 
sembled here in the city of Washington, composed of delegates 
and representatives from all the Central and South American 
states and republics, for the purpose of considering this and kin- 
dred questions. 

One of the recommendations of that Congress was that there 
should be established, for the purpose of facilitating trade between 
the United States and the Central and South American republics 
and Mexico, an international bank. By common consent it was 
agreed that that bank should be incorporated by the United States, 
and that it should be called the International American Bank. 
Pursuant to that recommendation, the then Secretary of State, 
throiigh the President, submitted to Congress a report of the 
proceedings of that convention in this behalf and requested appro- 
in-iate legislation to carry out that recommendation. 

Bills were introduced in both branches of Congress, all of the 
same general nature, and from time to time reports have been 
made, and I believe in every instance those bills have been favor- 
ably reported upon and recommendations have been made that the 
legislation be enacted. I have before me quite a number of those 
reports. I do not think it is necessary that I should go over them 
in detail, but I can state for the benefit of those who may desire 
to have that knowledge that in those reports all questions which 
have been raised with respect to this proposition have received 
careful consideration and have been argued at great length. 

One of the important questions considered was a legal (luestiou 

as to whether or not such legislation was constitutional. In a 

report which was made to the House of Representatives by Mr. 

Brosius, from the Committee on Banking and Currency, that 

S519 3 



>^f 



question is argued at length, and tbe authorities in support of the 
proposition that it is constitutional are submitted. It was con- 
tended and so agreed by the House committee that the Congress 
has power to enact such legislation as is now proposed under that 
clause of the Constitution which invests the Congress with power 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations. 

The only other question which has been considered is the gen- 
eral one as to whether or not it is good policj-, the constitutional 
question being decided in favor of the legislation, to enact such 
legislation as this and undertake to have an international bank. 
A great deal might be said in behalf of the proposition that our 
best interests require the enactment of legislation under which 
we can establish such an institution; but it is enough, perhaps, to 
say (because all else will be apparent to all who stop to consider 
and think of it for a moment) that the purpose of it is to afford 
better facilities for exchange between these republics and the 
United States of America, to afford banking facilities by reason 
of which we can transact our business with those countries di- 
rectly instead of by way of Liverpool and London, by which we 
may save to the people who do business in this country with the 
people of those countries the payment of the rates of exchange, 
which are so considerable as to amount in the aggregate to a very 
great sum annually. 

I have before me the rex)ort to which I have referred, made by 
Mr. Brosius, in which both of these propositions are discussed, 
and I have before me also the report which was made by Mr. 
Bacox, in which he also favorably discusses the proposition: and 
I ask unanimous consent that these reports may be printed in the 
Record in connection with the remarks I am now making, as 
embodying the reasons why I favor the bill. 

[The reports were here inserted in the Record.] 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, perhaps it is enough to say as 
to the character of the bank for which we have provided that it 
involves no assumption of responsibilitj' whatever by the United 
States Government. We become responsible for nothing that the 
bank may do, and yet while the Government is not at all responsi- 
ble for the conduct of the bank or the liabilities of the bank, it 
does assume a supervision of the bank, and the bill empowers the 
Comptroller from time to time to make visitations and to examine 
the condition of the bank, and it makes it his duty at all times to 
see that the bank is honestly and properly conducted. 

That provision is put there in order that the bank may accom- 
plish the purpose designed to be accomplished by it and in order 
that everybody may be made to know that it is being conducted 
under the supervision of an official who has authority to visit it 
and to suspend its operations and piit it into the hands of a re- 
ceiver if there be any violation whatever of any of the statutory 
provisions covering the conduct of the bank. 

I do not know that it is necessary for me to go into details fur- 
ther than I have. If there be any Senator here who desires to 
have any information on anj- point upon which I have not touched, 
I will be very glad to give it to him, if I can, if he will only signify 
what it is. 

Mr. MALLORY. Allow me to ask why it is that this bank can 
not be organized without the intervention of an act of Congress? 

Mr. FORAKER. It is possible that a bank could bo organized 
without the intervention of Congress, but it is very doubtful, as 
the committee thought, whether or not a bank could be author- 

8519 



^i- 



f 



ized and empowered by any one of our States — I suppose the Sen- 
ator from Florida lias in his mind the power of a State to authorize 
a bank — to do what this bank is empowered to do. namely, to con- 
duct business throughout the country at various points where it 
is authorized to have branch offices and also in foreign countries 
,in the manner in which the bill provides that this bank shall con- 
duct its business. 

But. however that may be. it was thought, aside from the ques- 
tion of power in a State so to authorize a bank to conduct that 
kind of l)u?-iness. that it was better policy, inasmuch as we were 
looking to the interests of the whole country and inasmuch as the 
bank was to do an international business, to incorporate the bank 
by the National Government and give to it that credit and pres- 
tige and power and influence which could be given only by the 
United States Government, and could not be given by any State 
government. I think those are the reasons which moved the com- 
mittee to recommend that Congress enact this legislation instead 
of committing it to the States. 

Mr. FRYE. The idea was practically to put it on a pai-allel 
with the Bank of Germany and the English bank already estab- 
lished in Brazil, at Rio Janeiro. 

Mr. MALLORY. Our banks can negotiate exchange without 
any special authorization. 

Mr. FOR AKER. They do, but at a very great disadvantage, as 
the committee xinderstan^Ls from the statements made before it. 

Mr. STEWART. I should like to call the attention of the Sen- 
ator to section 23. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me. that has been 
stricken out on motion of the Senator from Colorado. I stated 
that the Senator from Nevada had objection to it, and he moved 
to strike it out. 

:Mi-. STEWART. The corporations existing under the laws of 
any sovereign State can do business in other sovereign States by 
comity of nations, and we do it here by comity of States. I sup- 
pose that a corporation organized under the laws of the United 
States can do business in a State and in foreign countries upon 
the same principle. 

There is one other matter to whicli I should like to call the at- 
tention of the Senator. That is the amount of the reserve. All 
panics pretty nearly are created or are aggravated very much by 
the drawing in of the reserve, and if you have out a great deal of 
money and do a very large business, there is a great tumble when 
the smash comes. It seems to me that this is too small a reserve 
with the experience we have had with other banks. I do not like 
to interfere with the bill. I think, however, that if you had a 
larger reserve it would be safer. If the bank had a reserve of 35 
or 40 per cent, I certainly think it would be a more stable institu- 
tion and less liable to breed panics. 

When a panic comes, it sweeps down everybody, and the bank 
is compelled to draw in its reserve: and when it does, the whole 
community is mowed down and destroyed. The bank woiald not 
be under the same stress in tight times if it had a larger reserve. 
It is true it would not make quite as much money by loaning it 
out. I think when you require a reserve of only 2o per cent, yon 
come very near the danger limit. I think you ought to have a 
larger reserve. I am not going to oppose the bill onlihat account, 
however, but I simply call attention to this poiut. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am glad to have the Senator from Nevada 

3519 



f 



say he will not oppose the bill on that account. I have talked 
with him repeatedly in regard to the objection which he urges 
against the bill, and I am glad that when we come to consider the 
bill he feels as he does, namely, that he ought to express his opin- 
ion, but ought not to oppose the bill if other Senators do not agree 
with him. The provision of the bill is that the bank shall have a 
reserve of 25 per cent. This is as large a reserve, I undertake to 
say, without having accurate knowledge on the subject, as is ever 
by law required to he kept. 

Mr. STEWART, I do not think there is any instance where 
the reserve by law has been large enough in an}^ State or under 
any banking system, because sooner or later they all come to 
grief, and the want of a sufficient reserve makes the slaughter of 
honest men terrific, 

Mr, FORAKER, Since the Senator from Nevada suggested 
this to me in his seat some weeks ago I have talked with quite a 
number of bankers and others who I thought would have better 
knowledge and better judgment in regard to the matter than I, 
and all are of one mind about it, that 25 per cent is a large enough 
reserve for us to require the bank to keep. If a reserve of 35 or 
40 per cent should be required to be kept, as the Senator from 
Nevada suggests, it would very seriously interfere with the mak- 
ing of any money by the bank. I suppose what the Senator meant 
to say a moment ago was that when a bank draws in not its re- 
serve but its outstanding loans it precipitates a crash. 

Mr, STEWART. That is what I meant to say, 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not know how that would be. 

Mr, STEWART. It always has been that way, 

Mr. FORAKER. I know that this percentage seems to be re- 
garded by bankers generally as large enough. In committee it 
was unanimously thought to be large enough. That i3rovision 
was satisfactory, and I hope the bill will be allowed to stand in 
that particular as the committee has reported it. 

Mr. STEWART. I should like to see it larger. I do not want 
to obstruct the passage of the bill, but I should like to offer an 
amendment to make the reserve a little larger, I predict that if 
the Senator lives twenty-five years he will see them calling in 
their loans and a general smash. 

Mr, PETTUS. I should like to know what peculiar benefit 
there is from such a bank as this which would authorize the 
United States to exempt it from taxation, 

Mr, FORAKER. If the Senator from Alabama will allow me, 
I suppose he Avas not in the Senate when that section was stricken 
out of the bill. 

Mr. PETTU.S. Yes; I was in the Senate when that was done. 
The Senator from Colorado moved to strike out the twenty-third 
section. 

Mr, FORAKER, Yes. 

Mr. PETTUS, But the Senator knows that no State can tax 
the shares of this institution unless it is by authorit}-. I do not 
see any authority given in any part of the bill now for any tax to 
be put upon it by anybody, 

Mr, FORAKER, I do not agree with the Senator from Ala- 
bama as to the legal proposition, I understand that the shares of 
a bank, as, tor instance, the shares of a national bank, are personal 
property in the haiads of the holder, and in his hands taxable like 
any other property, 

Mr. PETTUS. If the Senator will allow me, that as a general 
3519 



proposition is trne in reference to State banks, but it has been (Ig- 
cided, and decided over and over again, that no State can tax any 
sucli bank as this unless it have authority from Congress. No 
State can tax the shares of this bank, and there is no jn-ovision in 
the bill authorizing the State to tax them in any way, shape, form, 
or fashion. We tax the shares of national banks, to be sure, but 
we tax them because the Congress of the United States has giveri 
authority to the States to levy such a tax, and without thai; au- 
thority no such tax could be levied. It seems to me, sir, that v/e 
have monopolies enough that are entirely beyond the taxing 
X)ower, without creating a monster liks this and giving it that 
privilege to start with. 

Mr. FORAKER. As I said a moment ago, I do not agree with 
the Senator from Alabama as to the legal proposition which is at 
the bottom of his remarks, but to remove all question on that 
I)oint I am willing, so far as I am concerned, to have the latter 
clause of section 23, which was stricken out in whole, reinserted 
in the bill. That would meet the suggestion of the Senator from 
Alabama and remove all doubt, if there be any without it. as to 
the shares of the bank being taxable in the hands of the owners 
of those shares wherever they mav be held in the Stales. 

Mr. PETTUS. The first part 'is an exemption purely. The 
latter part gives authority, but that has been stricken out, 

Mr. FORAKER. I am willing to have it reinserted. 

Mr. PETTUS. The Senator surely has not looked at the cases 
in the Supreme Court. That court has decided over and over 
again, way back yonder when the United States first created a 
national bank, that no State could tax it or any member of it for 
its shares, and it has been decided recent!}' and several times in 
reference to the present banks that the States can tax them only by 
authority of Congress and in the particular mode which Congress 
has pointed out. 

Mr. STEWART. Is there not a distinction between national 
banks and this bank? This is purely a private corporation. It is 
not an instrumentality of the Government in any way. and I do 
not think it would stand any different in the States from any 
other private corporation unless j'ou make it an instrumentality 
of the Government. The States have the same power to tax it as 
they have any other corporation formed in a State. Therefore I 
do not see any difference, but I think it would be very well to 
leave the last part of ther clause in. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Platt of Connecticut in the 
chair). Does the Senator from Ohio move to reconsider the vote 
by which the section was stricken out? 

Mr. FORAKER. To meet the objection of the Senator from 
Alabama, I move to reconsider the vote by which section 23 was 
stricken out. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. FORAKER. I move that so much of section 23 be stricken 
out as is embraced in the first three lines and down to and includ- 
ing the word "but" in the fourth line, so that the section as 
amended will read as follows: 

The several stockholders shall be liable to assessment and taxation i;pon 
the shai-es held by them at their respective places of residence according to 
the true value thereof, and to the same extent and in the same manner as 
other personal property is assessed and taxed. 

]\Ir. BACON. I should like to ask the Senator if he intends 
that the property held by this bank in any State shall be subject 
2519 



^i 



8 

to taxation the same as any other property? Is that the inten- 
tion? 

Mr. FORAKER. That is the intention. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator, then, would have no objection to 
expressing that? 

Mr. FORAKER. I would not have any objectien at all, but 
the bill as reported by the cominittee. if the Senator from Georgia 
will look at the section, provided that the property of the bank 
should not be taxed. 

Mr. BACON. I understand that has been stricken out. 

Mr. FORAKER. We struck it out because we were willing to 
have the property of the bank taxed, and I am perfectly willing 
now to have the property of the bank taxed and the shares of the 
bank in the hands of the owners taxed; and I am willing, if it 
meets with the approval of other Senators, to have the first clause 
of that section remain in, but so changed as to indicate authority 
to tax the property as well as the shares themselves. 

Mr. BACON. I only make the suggestion for this reason : I have 
no doubt as to the intention of the Senator, but then we have 
courts to deal with which might put a different construction upon 
it. I think it ought to be expressed. 

Mr. TELLER. I moved to strike out section 23 because I was 
under the impression that if there was no provision about taxa- 
tion it woiild be taxed under State lav/s. It is not an instrument 
of government like a national bank. I think it would be safe to 
put it in, however, saying it shall be taxed under the laws of the 
State wherein they do business. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator will remark that there is a provision 
in the charter for the performance of some public functions. 

Mr. TELLER. They are not national functions in the sense 
that a national bank performs such functions; at least I do not 
think so. 

Mr. BACON. I quite agree that the Senator's construction is 
correct, and if the Senator was going to be the judge on the bench 
to construe it, I should be perfectly willing to leave it as it is. 

Mr. TELLER. I am not. 

Mr. BACON. But he is not going to be; and the rule which 
has been repeatedly stated here during our recent debate on the 
subject of taxing corporations is quite an elastic one, and we do 
not know how far courts might stretch it to cover the case of a 
bank. which is authorized in its enumeration of powers to nego- 
tiate loans of government. 

Mr. TELLER. I think it would be very well to provide that it 
should be subject to State taxation according to State laws. 

Mr. BACON. I think the Senator is correct about that. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I ask the Senator from Colorado whether 
that would not follow as a matter of course? 

Mr. TELLER. I said I thought it would, but to save any ques- 
tion as to it I should think it would be better to put it in. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I should like to ask the Senator from Ohio 
whether this bank is charged with any function that could not as 
well be exercised by a bank chartered by a State; whether it per- 
forms any governmental function whatever; whether the dealing 
in exchange with foreign countries, receiving deposits from for- 
eign powers, being the agent of foreign powers, constitutes it in 
any respect a bank ©f the United States? 

Mr. FORAKER. Not a bank of the United States in any sense 
whatever; but I think it differs from any bank chartered by a 
£519 



state as to its power in this respect: I do not think it wonlcl be 
competent for any State to charter a bank with power to establish 
branches in other States throughout the Union and in Mexico and 
other foreign countries, as it is necessary for this international 
bank to do to accomplish the purpose it is to subserve, namely, 
facilitating international exchange, 

Mr. CAFFERY. Then I ask the Senator whether, if this bank 
performs no governmental function, has no attribute of the 
United States in banking, any charter of a branch bank in a State 
might not be liable to objection by State authorities, and whether 
it could obtain authority, by an incorporation under a law of 
Congress, to do business in another State when that business was 
of a purely private character and the bank performed no gov- 
ernmental agencj'? 

Mr. FORAKER. I think it does in a certain sense perform a 
governmental function, and that is an appropriate institution for 
the Government to establish. The constitutional question was 
solved in favor of this legislation by the committee which consid- 
ered it, upon the theory that it is the exercise of the power by the 
Government authorized by that clause of the Constitution which 
authorizes the Congress to regulate commerce among the States 
and with foreign countries. It is the direct purpose of it, and in 
a general sense the sole purpose of it, to facilitate our building up 
trade and commerce with other countries where now our trade 
and commerce are very unsatisfactory. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I will say to the Senator that that is the only 
trouble in my mind aboiit this bank. This bank does not appear 
to have any other function than a private bank chartered by a 
State would have. If this bank is made the agency of a foreign 
power, it is purely by convention between the bank and the for- 
eign pov>'er, and any convention of that sort can be as well had 
between a private bank incorporated by a State and a foreign 
power. 

Mr. FORAKER. But a private bank incorporated by a State 
surely would not have power to go into a foreign country and 
there establish a branch and there conduct a general banking 
business, as this bank is authorized to do. The Congress can give 
authority to do that under this general constitutional provision, 
but no State has such authority, so far as I am aware. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I suggest to the Senator whether or not the 
consent of the foreign power would not have to be obtained even 
in the case of the United States. 

Mr. FORAKER. Oh, undoubtedly. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Could not that authority be obtained as well 
for a State bank as for a bank of the United States? 

Mr. FORAKER. It might be procured for a State bank so far 
as the foreign power is concerned, but the home government 
might deny a State bank the right to go and exercise such a power 
as that, even if the foreign government should be willing. 

Mr. TELLER. Mr. President, I do not care to go into any de- 
bate over this question, because I have concluded that I shall not 
raise any question about it. I simply can not agree to the state- 
ment that the Government of the L'nited States has any more 
power to establish a bank in England than the State of New York 
has. The whole thing depends upon the consent of Great Britain. 
The State of Nevv^ York might say to a bank, '• If you see fit to 
establish a bank in Great Britain, it shall not in any wise be con- 
sidered a violation of your charter." We can say the same thing, 
3519 



1 



,^ 



10 

but neither the National Government nor the State government 
conld give it any earthly power in Great Britain. 

Mr. FORAKER. Of course I did not mean to be understood, 
and I hope the Senator did not so understand me, as saying that 
this Government could give to this bank to whicli we are now 
proceeding to grant a charter authority to go into a foreign coun- 
try and there, without regard to the wishes and desires of the for- 
eign govermnent, establish a banking business and conduct it. 
What I meant was we could give it authority and power to go 
there, provided, of course, that government would i^ermit it to do 
so. That is a matter for the other government. 

Mr. TELLER. I mean the State of New York can do precisely 
what the National Government can do in that particular. Neither 
one can do more than the other. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not know how it is as to the State of 
New York, but my idea is that the State of Ohio could not. in view 
of what I know of the constitution of the State of Ohio. The con- 
stitution of the State of Ohio has no provision in it, and there is 
no statute in the State of Ohio, and it would not be constitutional 
if there were, which authorizes the incorporation of a bank to do 
business anywhere except within the territorial limits of the State 
of Ohio; but when it comes to a question of the constitutional 
power of Congress, we have an express constitutional provision 
which governs and fits this case, tinder the clause which says that 
Congress shall have power to regulate commerce, not only among 
the States, which gives it authority to go into all of them, but with 
foreign countries as well, which gives authority to act in a matter 
of this kind, which is a mere facility for increasing our trade by 
making more simple aiid easy and direct our exchanges. 

Mr. MALLORY. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. MALLORY. As I understand the Senator's remarks, the 
l^restige of an incorporation by the United States Government is 
sought because it is advantageous to the bank. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes; it is thought to be. 

Mr. MALLORY. Now, will not this bank, by reason of the in- 
fluence received from its incorporation, have a practical monopoly 
of this business which is now being conducted by other banks, by 
the national banks and other banks in the several States along our 
seaboard? That is an objection which presents itself to my mind, 
and I should like to know about it. 

Mr. FORAKER. I think it would have advantages over banks 
incorporated simply by the States, but I think it is one of those 
things which it is our cbity to provide for without regard to what 
effect it may have upon those who necessarily enter into competi- 
tion with it. 

Mr. MALLORY. It occurs to me that possibly there may be 
difficulty hereafter, when this bank is chartered with $25,000,000 
capital, as we authorize 

Mr. FORAKER. Five million dollars. 

Mr. MALLORY. Originally, with an increase to $25,000,000, 
The question is whether it would be possible to get through Con- 
gress a charter for another bank. 

Mr. FORAKER. The committee were divided in their opinion 
as to whether or not this should be made to apply to other coun- 
tries as well as the South American Republics, but the Senator will 
observe that there is nothing exclusive about it. There may bo 
just as many more international American banks established by 
3 nil 



^ 



11 

Congress as Congress may hereafter see fit to establish. It is sim- 
l^ly and necessarily experimental to some extent. We have been 
experimenting ■without one, and the result has been nnsatisfac- 
tory, and now we want to experiment with one, and if this works 
well the committee said in eil'ect then it would be time enough to 
take up the question whether we will extend the powers of this 
bank or authorize other similar banks. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Will the Senator permit me to ask him one 
more question? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly; but I wish to offer an amendment. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I simply desire to be informed on this ques- 
tion, I confess it is the first time I have looked over the provi- 
sions of the bill, and that very hastily. The Senator has admitted 
that this bank could not do any business in a foreign country 
purely without the consent of that foreign country. 

Mr. FORAKER. That is, the foreign country could exclude it, 
of course. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Exactly. 

Mr. FORAKER. It is a foreign corporation. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Now, as the States, in all matters where the 
Federal Government has authority, are just as much foreign 
States, what good reason is there why this bank could not be pro- 
hibited from doing business in a State, as it does only that sort of 
business which ordinary private banking institutions do? 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not understand that any State would 
have a right to prohibit this bank, authorized as it is proposed to 
authorize it, from doing business within their territorial limits. 
I think it is competent for Congress to authorize banks of this 
character to have a place of business with branch offices in the 
various States. 

Mr. CAFFERY. If this bank were a bank of issue, I concede 
to the Senator that it could be authorized to establish branch 
banks, but the business of the bank is confined, in my opinion, to 
business of purely an individual character. It has not any gov- 
ernmental functions to perform. It does not perform any of the 
attributes that the United States can perform in the matter of 
regulating currency or regulating commerce. The power to es- 
tablish banks under the commerce clause of the Constitution was 
derived from the power of the banks to issue ciirrency, and in that 
respect to regulate commerce, but as to discounting paper, receiv- 
ing discounts, negotiating bills of exchange, whether with foreign 
powers or not, it occiirs to me that no bank chartered by the 
United States to perform these functions could establish its 
branches in the States and do this sort of business of a purely pri- 
vate bank character against the will and consent of the States. 

Mr. TELLER. This bank will have an unquestioned right to 
do business in the District of Columbia. There is no question 
about that. It can do business, then, in the State of New York, 
provided the State of New York does not object. I am speaking 
of it as an institution not performing any governmental function. 
The State of New York will consent, very likely, that it shall do 
business in New York. They have a method in New York and in 
all the other States by which they allow foreign corporations — and 
they are all foreign in the other States as well as abroad — to do 
business. Unless this bank performs some governmental function 
it will have no power in the States except what the States give it. 
That is my judgment. 

Mr. BACON. I should like to ask the Senator from Ohio if he 
3519 



f7 



12 

thinks the General Government has any power to charter a bank 
except it be for the performance of some governmental function? 

Mr. FORAKER. No; I do not think it has. Therefore I an- 
swered as I did a moment ago. If the Senator from Georgia was 
listening, he would have remembered that I said 

Mr. BACON. I was called momentarily from the Chamber 
and possibly did not hear the Senator. 

Mr. FORAKER. 1 said there was no specific function desig- 
nated by the terms of the bill, yet it was, after all, an incorpora- 
tion for the purpose of discharging this particular governmental 
function, namely, assisting to regulate commerce between the 
States and with foreign countries. I said it was authorized by 
that provision of the Constitution, and it was an agency of the 
Government in that respect. 

Mr. BACON. I beg pardon; I was absent from the Chamber 
momentarily when the Senator made that exi^lanation. The Sen- 
ator, then, understands this charter to be designed for the pur- 
l^ose of aiding the Government in the regulation of interstate 
commerce. Am I correct in that? I should be glad if the Senator 
would call attention to the particular section which is intended to 
carry out that purpose. Will the Senator kindly refer to the sec- 
tion of the charter? 

Mr. FORAKER. I will read from the report made by Mr, 
Brosius, which I referred to a while ago, and which will be 
printed as a part of my remarks. 

Mr. BACON. As the Senator is speaking of the powers of the 
company, I should like to have him refer to the particular charter 
power by and tlirongh which the Government will perform the 
function of regulating interstate commerce. 

Mr. CAFFERY. through the banks? 

Mr. BACON. Yes; through the banks. Then I should like 
very much 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not say to regulate it. The provision of 
the Constitution is that Congress may be empowered. I will read 
the exact clause: 

The Congress shall have power * * * to regulate commerce with for 
eign nations. 

Now, that does not mean simply that the Congress shall say 
upon what terms the products of other countries shall be brought 
into this country or the products of this country shall be exported; 
but it may mean a great many things. It means, among others, 
that Congress shall have the power to create governmental agen- 
cies to facilitate the conduct of our commerce and trade with 
other countries. That has been held repeatedly by the Supreme 
Court, and in the report made by Mr. Brosius to the House of 
Representatives, and to which I referred a moment ago, some of 
the authorities are cited. 

I will not take the time now to read them, but, considering them 
now in that light, as an agency established by the Government for 
the purpose of facilitating our trade with other countries, you will 
find, in the enumeration of the powers this bank shall be invested 
with, that it has the power to handle exchange and to do a great 
many other things having relation to trade, whereby our trade 
will be facilitated and whereby it will be unnecessary hereafter, 
as has been the case heretofore, that we shall trade with those 
countries through the banks of London and elsewhere in Europe. 
It is in that general sense, and it is no other specific sense that I 
know of. 
35i9 



13 

Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me, of course no one 
disputes tlie fact that there is a constitutional power of Congress to 
regulate commerce between this coiintry and foreign countries 
and also between the States, but the point I desire to ask the Sen- 
ator to give me definite information upon is whether this bank is 
intended to exercise those governmental functions; whether it is 
intended that the Government of the United States shall delegate 
to these private parties the official fimctions of regulating com- 
merce between this country and foreign countries and of regulat- 
ing commerce between the'^States? 

Mr. FORAKER. Oh, no. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator will pardon me a moment. He 
eays "no," I understand. 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly; I have said "no" all the time, as 
repeatedly as I have been asked. I say no in that specific sense, 
and I say it is an agency simply in the sense that it facilitates 
these transactions; that is all. 

Mr. BACON. If it is intended that this shall be a governmental 
agency, it is a very serious question. If it is intended that this 
shall be a governmental agency in the performance of these very 
great functions, I say this measure ought to have verj- careful 
consideration. If it is merely the charter of a private institution 
for the purpose cf carrying on commerce, it is one thing. 

Mr. FORAKER. That is what it is. If the Senator from 
Georgia will allow me to say again, it is a private corporation in- 
tended to carry on the business which it is expressly authorized 
to carry on, and the constitutional warrant for it is found in the 
provision to which I have referred that ex necessitate it facilitates 
general commerce. It is not an agency of the Government in 
any siTch sense as the Senator speaks of, as I understand him. 

Mr. BACON. Very well; we now come back to that point. I 
originally asked the Senator whether it was competent for Con- 
gress to charter a bank which was not intended to perform some 
governmental function. The Senator said it was not. The Sen- 
ator said he did not think it was competent for Congress to charter 
a bank unless it was clothed with the power to perform govern- 
mental functions; in other words, that the general business of 
incorporating companies for private purposes is not a part of the 
business of Congress. When I ask as to what those particular 
governmental functions are, the learned Senator, as I understand, 
says that they are not governmental functions, but that they are 
the private business of a private corporation, in the performance 
of which the general business of the country will be advanced. 

Mr. President, if the Senator will pardon me a moment. Of 
course I dislike to make any suggestions which maybe unfriendly 
to the bill which has the support of the Senators who are evi- 
dently interested in its passage, but at the same time I think it is 
an extremely grave and important matter. I have been unable to 
appreciate any suggestion which has been made of the advantages 
which are to flow from this bank. I am unable to recognize the 
correctness of the suggestion made by the Senator in his opening 
remarks that this bank will have any power in foreign countries 
that a bank would not have if it were chartered by a State. I do 
not think it will have one. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me to correct him, 
I did not say this bank would have any more power in another 
State. Well, possibly I did say what amounted to that, too. 
What I meant to say 'was that no State, according to the provi- 

3519 



-7 7 



14 

sious of its constitution, where I happen to know anything about 
the State constitutions of the Union, has i^ower to authorize a 
bank to go into the various States and transact banking business, 
much less to go into foreign countries and transact international 
banking business, as this bank is authorized to do. 

I did not contend in that connection that this bank, because 
chartered by the National Government, would have by reason of 
that fact power, regardless of the wishes of foreign governments, 
to go into foreign countries and there transact business; but I say 
it is competent for the Congress of the United States, in the exer- 
cise of the constitutional power to which we have referred, to invest 
a bank Avith the power that this is to be invested with or to estab- 
lish any other agency or facility for the transaction of this busi- 
ness with other countries which may, in a general way, have the 
etfect of regulating, if you want to use that word, the commerce 
of this country with the other countries. It remains a private 
corporation engaged in private business, not a governmental 
agency in the particular sense in which you speak of it; and j'et 
it is an agency established by the Government for the facilitating 
of that business and in that sense warranted by the Constitirtion, 
as 1 understand. 

Mr. BACON. If it were necessary that the General Govern- 
ment should charter a bank in order that that bank might have 
IDOwer to exercise corporate functions in a foreign country, there 
would be a sound basis for the application for this charter. But 
such, Mr. President, is not the fact. Any independent sover- 
eignty even within such limitations, as our States exercise such 
sovereignty, has the power to make a corporation. It has the 
power to give that corporation all powers not prohibited within 
its own borders, and it has the power also to authorize that corpo- 
ration to go into a foreign jurisdiction. Of course, the exercise 
of those powers in the foreign jurisdiction must necessarily de- 
pend upon the consent of the foreign jurisdiction; but the State 
has the same power to clothe a corporation with corporate power 
that the General Government would have if it had no limitation 
upon the incorporating of companies. 

The Senator says that no State, so far as he knows, has the power 
to clothe corporations with powers which could be exercised in a 
foreign State. It is done every day, Mr. President. I do not know 
how it is in the State of Ohio, because I have never had occasion 
to look into it, but the State of New Jersey (and I mention that 
simply because it is one of the most prominent States in the grant- 
ing of charters) has flooded this country with corporations which 
have their home in New Jersey and which never intended to exer- 
cise any corporate functions in New Jersey, but which were de- 
signed to be exercised in other States. A very large proportion of 
the corporations which do business in New York are chartered in 
New Jersey, because New Jersey has peculiar facilities for the in- 
corporation of such bodies corporate. 

The general proposition is that a corporation chartered in one 
State is limited to the confines of that State, except so far as it 
has the power committed to it by another State. That was settled 
in the great case of Earle against the Bank of Augusta, in 1-3 
Peters, where the whole question is discussed at length and very 
learnedly. I was about to say that that decision was by Chief 
Justice Marshall, and I believe it was, but I am not sure. How- 
ever, it is the leading case on that question, and under it there can 
be no doubt about the proposition that a bank chartered in one 

&519 



15 

State can exercise in another State by consent of that State, every 
power enumerated in its charter, except so far as it relates to any- 
thing which ia connected with the Government of the United 
States. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio proposes 
an amendment to section 23 which has not been stated by the 
Secretary. The Secretary will state the amendment. 

The Secretary. In section 23, page 25, line 1, after the word 
"That," it is proposed to strike out all of the bill down to and 
including the word "but," in line 4. 

Mr. FORAKER. I withdraw that amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn. 

Mr. FORAKER. Section 23 being reinstated, I now offer to 
amend it as follows: Strike out, in line 1 of section 23, the follow- 
ing words: "no tax shall be imposed upon;" strikeout of line 3 
the words " except upon real estate held by it; " and strike out in 
line 4 the word '• but; " and then insert so as to make it read as 
follows: 

Sec. 33. That the property of said corporation shall bo subject to taxation 
by any Sta*e, municipal, or other authority having jurisdiction thereof 
within the United States the same as other like property, and the several 
stockholders shall be liable to assessment and taxation upon the shares held 
by them at their respective places of residence according to the true value 
thereof, and to the same extent and in the same manner as other personal 
property is there assessed and taxed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. PETTUS. Mr. President, I desire to suggest to the Sena- 
tor from Ohio in charge of the bill that in all corporations of 
this sort chartered by the States or by the United States there 
has always been a limitation as to the amount of interest that 
might be charged by such corporation on their loans. I do not 
find anything of that kind in this charter. 

Mr. FORAKER, There is nothing of that kind in this charter. 
No question of that kind was raised in the committee or consid- 
ered by the committee, so far as I have Imo wledge. I do not know 
why it was not considered, but I assume that the reason for not 
undertaking to fix a rate of interest is that this bank is to do busi- 
ness in foreign countries where the conditions may be very differ- 
ent from those existing here and that a rate of interest which we 
might fix might not be satisfactory there. 

-» * « * * •;.- -;;• 

June l/f, 1S9S. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, before answering directly 
what the Senator from Alabama has just said, I wish briefly to 
make answer to a proposition advanced by him when the bill was 
under consideration yesterday. 

He complained at that time of the provisions of this bill because 
the bill in its state at the time when he made the objection did 
not provide for the taxation of the shares to be issued by this 
bank; and in that connection he contended that without special 
authority being given in the act, the shares of this bank in the 
hands of the owners and holders of them could not be taxed by 
the local authorities. I stated at the time that I did not agree 
with him as to that proposition. I did not, however, have the au- 
thorities before me; but in the absence of all authority, with an 
assurance equal to that which he has just now manifested and 
8510 



/ 



IG 

with a confidence in liis knowledge and ability whicli lacked noth- 
ing whatever, he told iis that it had been decided over and over 
again that the shares of stock in a bank of this character could 
not be taxed by State authorities unless there was in the act creat- 
ing the bank a provision granting permission to the State so to 
tax the shares. 

Mr. PETTCJS. Not in the act creating it. 

Mr. FORAKER. Or otherwise; by some kind of Congi'essional 
enactmen t. 

Mr. PETTUS. That is it. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, instead of the law having been 
settled as claimed by the Senator from Alabama, it has always, 
from the beginning of our Government, been held by our Supreme 
Court, in every instance in which it has rendered judgment upon 
such a question, that the property of a governmental agency, when 
the agency is conceded or established, is taxable by the States as 
other property and that only the franchise to exist or the opera- 
tion itself of the governmental agency could not be taxed by the 
State. 

It was not necessary, in my judgment, that the Congress should 
have expressly provided that the shares of national banks in the 
hands of holders might be taxable in the States. I think they 
were taxable without that, and that the provision was put into 
that statute only in order that there might be no room for doubt 
or question about their*being taxable. In the case of McCullocli 
vs. The State of Maryland, reported in 4 Wheaton, page 316, the 
Supreme Court say: 

The States have no power, by taxation or otherwisa, to retard, impede, 
burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws 
enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the National 
Government. 

This principle does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the 
Bank of the United States, in common with the other real property in a par- 
ticular State, nor to a tax imposed on the proprietary interest which the 
citizens of that State may hold in this institution, in common with other 
property of the same description throughout the State. 

In the opinion of the court the proposition stated in the syllabus 
as I have just read it is elaborated. The Supreme Court there 
say it is not prohibited to the States to tax the property of such 
agencies or corporations in the States, and that there is no limita- 
tion upon the power of the State in that regard except only when 
the State undertakes to interfere with the operation of the agency 
and render a nullity that which the National Government has 
established for the purpose of accomplishing some particular 
object. 

In Mr. Cooley"s work on Taxation, page 85, occurs the follow- 
ing, in discussing this question: 

And a State may tax the property of Federal agencies with other property 
in the State, and as other property is taxed, when no law of Congress f orbid.s, 
and when the effect of the taxation will not be to defeat or hinder the opera- 
tions of the National Government. 

In 18 Wallace, page 5, is reported the case of the Railroad Com- 
pany vs. Peniston. I read briefly from this case. It is a recent 
decision of our Supreme Court, or comparatively so, rendered in 
1873, and never questioned by that or any other court either be- 
fore its rendition or since. The first paragraph of the syllabus 
reads as follows: 

The exemption of agencies of the Federal Government from taxation by 
the States is dependent, not upon the nature of the agents, nor upon the 
mode of their constitution, nor upon the fact that they are agents, but upon 
3519 



3 



17 

the effect of the tax: that is, upon the question whether the tax does in truth 
deprive them of power to serve the Government as they were intended to 
serve it, or hinder the efficient exercise of their power. A tax upon tlieir 
property merely, having- no such necessary effect, and leaving them free to 
discharge the duties they have undertaken to perform, may be rightfully 
.laid by the States. A tax upon their operations, being a direct obstruction 
to the exercise of Federal powers, may not bo. 

I wish now briefly to read from tlie decision itself, wliicli was 

rendered by Mr. Justice Strong. I read first from page ::>0: 

There are, we admit, certain subjects of taxation which are withdrawn 
from the power of the States, not by any direct or express provision of the 
Federal Constitution, but by what may be regarded as its necessary implica- 
tions. They grow oat of our complex system of government, and out of the 
fact that the authority of the National Groverument is legitimately exercised 
within the States. While it is true that Government can not exercise its 
power of taxation so as to destroy the State governments, or embarrass their 
lawful action, it is equally true that the States may not levy taxes the dii-ect 
effect of which shall be to hinder the exercise of any powers which belong to 
the National Government. The Constitution contemplates that none of those 
powers may be restrained by State legislation. But it is often a difficult 
question whether a tax imposed by a State does in fact invade the domain of 
the General Government, or interfere with its operations to such an extent, 
or in such a manner, as to render it unwarranted. It cn,n not be that a State 
tax which remotely affects the efficient exercise of a Federal power is for 
that reason alone inhibited by the Constitution. 

Tliere is a great deal more in this opinion to the same effect. I 
comraend it to the consideration of the Senator from Alabama. 
After referring to the ca.se of McCulloch vs. The State of Mra-y- 
land, the opinion proceeds: 

But when the question is, as in the present cas.2— 

The case then before the court — 

whether the taxation of property is taxation of means, instrncionts, or agen- 
cies by which the United States carries out its powers, it is impo.^sible to see 
how it can be pertinent to inquire whence the property originated or froai 
whom its present owners obtained it. 

But an examination of what was decided in those cases will reveal that 
they are in full harmony with the doctrine that the property of an agent of 
the General Government may be subjected to State taxation. 

That is as far as I care to read. 

Mr. PETTUS. I will ask the Senator if he did not break the 
l^aragraph in two? 

Mr. FORAKER. No, sir; I did not break any paragraph in 
two. I was about to read another paragraph, but seeing that 1 
could not read it and make it intelligible without reading another 
preceding it, which had reference to another case, I concluded 
that I would not take the time to go back and read both of them. 

But I wish to state that according to the authorities which I 
have read, and according to all authorities, for there is not a de- 
cision that the Senator from Alabama can cite to the contrary, it 
is competent for the States to tax the property of an agency of 
the General Government when they tax it only as other property 
is taxed, and the only thing that the States are prohibited from 
taxing when they come to taxing governmental agencies is the 
franchise, the existence, or the operation of the agency. The 
National Government will not allow a State to interfere with or 
impede or retard or pursue or hinder or bring to naught the oper- 
ations of an agency which it has set up for the purpose of con- 
summating some particular object. But there is nowhere any de- 
c^ision that holds that because a corporation created by the National 
Government may have some kind of function or agency with re- 
spect to the Government, its property shall be exempt, or the stock 
that may be issited by the corporation shall be exempt, from taxa- 
3519-3 



18 

tion in the hands of the citizens who are the owners and holders 
of tiie same in the several States. 

Therefore the committee were not in error when they took the 
view of that matter which they did take, and their purpose in set- 
ting forth that the stock should be taxedi in the hands of the own- 
ers and holders was simply, as was the case with respect to the 
national banks, to remove beyond all question the proposition that 
such stock was taxable in the hands of the owners and holders. 
And hence when the whole section went out upon motion of the 
Senator from Colorado, no right of taxation was taken away from 
the States, and especially there is not any "brigand behind the 
bush," as the Senator from Alabama seems to think there is with 
respect to everything here to which he takes exception. 

The Senator' from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] asked some questions 
yesterday which I was not prepared upon authority to answer at 
the time, although I answered him upon reason and principle as 
well as 1 could, and I find iipon consulting the authorities that ho 
was at the time answered correctly. The Senator asked, in tho 
course of the colloquy which was proceeding here in tho Chamber, 
whether or not this incorporated company which we are propos- 
ing to create was to be an agency of the Government. When ho 
was answered in the waj' in which he was answered, namely, that 
while it was not created to carry out any specific purpose that was 
expressed in the act, yet it was an agency of the Government in 
the sense that it was intended to promote the commerce of this 
country with other countries and was therefore warranted by the 
constitutional provision which gives to Congress the right to reg- 
ulate commerce with foreign nations, he asked us to lay our 
hands on, or point our finger to, the provisions in the statute that 
expressed any such agency or any such national purpose, intimat- 
ing that the general provision to which I called his attention, or 
the general purpose which I had pointed out, was not sufficient to 
meet the requirement, but that it would be necessary, in order 
that this should be brought within the purview of the constitu- 
tional i^rovision. to put into the bill a designation or a definite 
express description of what we were to do in that behalf. 

I have before me the 135 United States, and I read from page 
657 the case of the Cherokee Nation vs. Kansas Railway Company. 
The court says: 

Confess has power to regulate commerce, not only with foreign nations 
and among the several States, but with the Indian tribes. It is not necessary 
that an act of Congress should express, in words, the purpose for which it 
was passed. Tho court will determine for itself whether the means employed 
by Congress have any relation to the powers granted by the Constitution. 

They go on to say that the railroad which was there empowered 
by Congress to do certain things, although incorporated by a State, 
and not incorporated by the National Government, was yet an 
agency which might be employed as such by the National Gov- 
ernment in connection with the regulation of commerce, and that 
it was a sufficient regulation of commerce to promote commerce 
between that Territory and the States adjoining it through which 
the railroad passed. Just so it is here, saying to-day upon express 
authority, as we said yesterday upon general principle, that it is 
insufficient to bring the proposed international bank ^vithin the 
purview of this constitutional provision, for ns to point out that 
in the general way in which we have claimed for it it is an agency 
of the Government, employed by it in the regulation of commerce 
with foreign nations and among the States, for it is to do business . 

oolO 



KSf 



19 

araoiig the States and with foreign nation?, and it is sufficient to 
demonstrate that it is employed in the regulation of commerce 
to show that it deals with instruments of commerce, bills of ex- 
change, etc., in a way that is calculated to promote commerce and 
to extend our trade relations, and in that way to benefit the i>e6- 
l)]e of the United States. 

I might cite a great many other authorities to the same effect, 
but I will not take the time to do it. However, there is one other 
to which I wish to call attention, and that is a decision in 91 United 
States, page 2S0. where the court defines what commerce is. It is 
the case oi' Welton vs. The State of Missouri. The court say: 

Commerce is a term of the largest import. It comprehends intercourse 
for the purposes of trade in any and all its forms, including the transporta- 
tion, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities between the citizens of 
our country and the citizens or subjects of other countries, and between the 
citizens of different States. The power to regulate it embraces all the instru- 
ments by which such commerce may be conducted. 

So they go on to the same effect. I have read enough for the 
purpose I have in view. I want to show that the term "com- 
merce" as employed in the Constitution is not confined, wheu 
properly interpreted, to mere bargaining, to mere buying and sell- 
ing, to expoirting and importing, but that it relates to all the busi- 
ness transactions which the people of this country may have with 
another country. It is a broad term, practically without any lim- 
itation at all, except only as there is, in the nature of things, a 
limitation upon the general powers of man to have transactions. 

Not only is the term "commerce" broad enough to cover all 
transactions, but it has been time and again expressly held, as 
held there, that it covers not only the general transactions, but 
each and every instrumentality that may be emi^loyed in the con- 
summation of transactions, and there fore it is competent for us 
in legislating with respect to the regulation of commerce to legis- 
late in such a way as to affect the giving of promissory notes and 
bills of exchange and drafts and all the other kinds of paper in- 
struments that are employed by mankind in the transaction of 
their business one with another. 

This bank is designed to do that very thing. The bank is there- 
fore a corporation created by the National Government, created 
by the Congress of the United States in the exercise of its power 
to regulate commerce among the States and with foreign nations, 
and it is regulating commerce when it provides a means for the 
giving of exchange and all the other commercial and negotiable 
instritments that are mentioned and described in these sections 
Avhich have been so fully commented upon by the Senator from 
Alabama. 

I need not pursue that further, and I am loath to feel that there 
is any necessity for ma to say anything more than I have already 
said. But the remarks of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Pet- 
Tus] would seem to call for some kind of an answer as to the 
merits of the measure, conceding that, in a general way, it is 
appropriate legislation. 

This bill has been very severely arraigned by the Senator from 
Alabama. Let me say that I do not share at all with the Senator 
from Alabama in the apprehension he has because of aggregations 
of capital such as are provided for by this measure. Aggrega- 
tions of capital are sometimes abused. They are often made the 
agencies and instrumentalities of wrong, and there are noted in- 
stances of that kind, some of which the Senator from Alabama has 

3519 



20 

referred to. But, Mr. President, on the other hand, aggregations 
of capital are essential in the transaction of the world's business, 
and surely essential in the transaction of a financial business of 
the character necessary to be transacted in our international af- 
fairs and concerns. 

Why is it that the United States is at such a great disadvan- 
tage in our international commerce with the South American 
States and Republics? It is chiefly, or at least largely, due to the 
fact that in England and in other countries they have larger ag- 
gregations of capital by far employed in the business of inter- 
national banking than the aggi-egation of capital here suggested. 
I believe in England alone the capital embarked in international 
banking enterprises amounts to §','00,000,000. We have no capital 
at all so employed, and because we have no capital so employed 
when our merchants in the United States want to transact busi- 
ness with the other countries they must transact it, so far as the 
financial features of tlie transaction are concerned, through great 
business houses abroad. One of the purposes of this measure is 
to relieve iis from that disadvantage. 

Mr. BACOX. l\Ir. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from Georgia? • 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. BACOX. With the permission of the Senator, I rose to ask 
him, as he regards these aggregations of capital as advantageous, 
if he does not think, should there be an incorporation of this^kind, 
that opportunity ought to be given for any other parties who de- 
sire to associate themselves together in a similar way to avail 
themselves of the provisions of the bill? 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, I do; and in committee I advocated the 
idea of making this a general law, under which all could Ijecome 
incorporated and engage in this business who might so desire. I 
have no objection to that. I would be glad to see the bill so 
amended, but it was the opinion of the committee, and I say it 
for the benefit of the Senator from Georgia, as the bill was neces- 
sarily somewhat experimental, that it was sufficient for the present 
to grant this particular charter, the only one that has been asked 
for. Tliey did not know of anybody else who wanted to embark 
in this business. If it proved a successful venture, others could 
apply, and no doubt would applv, and if Congress found it to pro- 
mote the best interests of the country to grant further charters, 
Congress will have the power to do so. There is nothing exclu- 
sive here; there is no monopoly here. Whv do Senators talk about 
a monopoly? Why do Senators talk about a trust? Is not the 
opportunity free to all the people of the United States to come to 
Congress and get the same franchise these people are applying for? 

Mr. BACON. Does not the Senator suppose, however, that if 
these great powers are given to this corporation, hereafter not 
the Senator, but this coi-poration, would be inimical to the granting 
of a similar charter to others? 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not know whether it would be or not. 
I do not knov.' why it should be. But whether it would be or not, 
Congi-ess stands here the arbiter between all who might be in- 
terested. 

Mr. BACON. I will state the object I had in view in asking 
the question. I do not think it good policv to grant these powers, 
but if they are to be granted at all, I think they ought to bo free 
to all parties who desire to avail themselves of them, and I simply 

3519 



21 

desired to know wlietlier tlie Senator would be willing to accept 
an amendment of that kind to the bill. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator from Georgia had been upon 
the Committee on Foreign Relations there would have been one 
more vote in favor of that proposition. The proposition, although 
I favored it, was not adopted there. Whenever others come for- 
ward who are worthy of such recognition, who can show that 
they have the necessary responsibility, character, and ability, I 
am willing to say that there sliould be a charter granted to them 

Mr. HAWLEY. I favor this bill, I am aiming to favor it, but 
I wish to ask the Senator from Ohio a question. 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. HAWLEY. Is there any real difference in principle be- 
tween this international bank and the international Navigation 
Company, which deals in steamboats and passengers and all that 
sort of thing? Why should there not be an international bank to 
take care of the financial relations of this great people? 

Mr. FORAKER. I have never examined the charter of the 
International Navigation Companj-, and can not for that reason 
answer the Senator from Connecticut as he should be answered, 
biit I take it, from all I know about it in a general way, that if it 
be proper and if it be good policy to grant such a charter as the 
International Navigation Company has received, upon the same 
general principles and for the same general reasons there ought 
to be a grant of this charter to ibis bank, in order that the finan- 
cial transactions between this country and other countries that 
it is proposed to deal with and in may be taken care of and prop- 
erly attended to. 

I was saying when interrupted by the Senator from Georgia 
that I do not share the apprehension which has been expressed by 
the Senator from Alabama as to what will result if we grant a 
charter authorizing a bank with $r),000,000 capital. I had just 
pointed out that the international banks of London have a capi- 
tal, as I have been informed, of $200,000,000. and no disadvantage 
has resulted in that country to the people of that country on that 
account, but a great deal of disadvantage has resulted to the peo- 
ple of this country. 

You can not enter into competition successfully with a compet- 
itor of the character we have to meet in England, armed with 
such facilities as they have armed their banks with, unless you 
give a franchise such as is asked for here. A corporation created 
for this purpose can not subserve its purpose unless it can be suffi- 
ciently strong financially to go into the markets of those coun- 
tries and there compete with the rivals they have in this business. 
And it is simply a question whether the United States, with re- 
spect to this matter and other matters, proposes now to move for- 
ward and keep abreast with the march of events or stand still and 
mark time, and thus stay in the rear and abide by the notions that 
prevailed in the years that have gone bj'. 

We have come to a time, Mr. President, when there is ahead of 
the people of the United States great opportiinities. We are. l»y 
the force of events that we can not control or prevent if we would, 
driven to consider our relations to the rest of the world. One of 
the great necessities of the present time is for the United States to 
extend our trade relations with the rest of the world and find mar- 
ket? for our surplus products in other countries, and coiiaciderjt 
with this necessity is the situation that the war in which we are 
engaged has precipitated. Of necessity we are driven to think of 
3519 



7 



our relations in other countries and of ti*ades with other countries, 
and wheia we stop to consider what are the necessities of success- 
ful commercial enterprise tljere, we find, among other necessities, 
that lor proper banking facilities. Wo do not have them, and 
thus are at a disadvantage. 

This bill is intended to promote in part our interests in that re- 
spect. But you can not promote our interests and fully meet the 
requirements of the case unless the United States Government 
(at least that is the opinion of the committee) shall create a cor- 
poration of this character and shall invest it with all the powers 
necessary to a successful business, and authorize it, among other 
things, to have a capital sufficiently large to engage in the busi- 
ness that it is designed to engage in. 

Now, the Senator from Alabama has talked about this as a 
monster. I do not wish to employ language of the character he 
has seen fit to employ; I do not wish to be personal; but I want 
to Siiy to the Senator from Alabama that epithets and adjectives 
do not constitute merit in argimient. If the bill be a monster, an 
examination of its iirovisions will show that it is such; and if it 
be not a monster, an examination of the pro-visions of the bill will 
show that the Senator has spoken either thoughtlessly or unjustly. 
In any event, he has spoken without any authority what^:oeve^. 
He has passed in review the powers that are conferred upon this 
corporation and has spoken of them as being so far in excess of 
the powers conferred upon national banks that it is enough to 
create astonishment simply to compare the one institution with 
the other. I have here the national banking law, and I want to 
read, in order that it may go into the Record along v\-ith the 
remarks of the Senator from Alabama in that particular, the 
powers that are conferred by Congress by that statute upon 
national banks. 

First, the Senator comments most severely upon the fact that 
the bill does not contain any provisions prescribing the maximum 
rate of interest that may be charged, and he called me to account 
in terms that I thought were hardly justified for having answered 
his interrogatory in regard to that yesterday with a statement 
that I was not acquainted with the reason why the committee had 
not seen fit to put such a provision in the bill, except only as it 
occurred to me upon reason that they did not deem it necessary 
to undertake to prescribe a rate of interest for transactions that 
were to be carried on in all the various countries here enumerated, 
conditions varying as they do. 

The Senator from Alabama says that this is the first law creat- 
ing a bank which has not prescribed a rate of interest and fixed 
what the rate of interest shall be. Mr. President, the bill pro- 
vides that the principal office of this bank shall be either in the 
cit}' of Washington or in the city of New York, and that it shall 
have eight branch offices scattered throughout this country at 
points to be determined upon by the board of directors and ap- 
proved by the Comptroller of tlie Currency. And it is to have 
eight branch ofiices in other countries— one in the West Indies, 
one in Mexico, and the others in Central and South American 
States at such points as may be determined upon by the board of 
directors and be approved by the Comptroller of the Currency. 

Nobody yet knows exactly where those branch offices will be 
located, but we all do know that they will be located in some one 
of the States or Territories referred to, and we all do know that 
wherever located they will be subject to the laws there in force. 

3519 



i'3 



A bank doing business in the District of Columbia will be gov- 
erned by the laws of the District of Columbia with respect to all 
matters concerning which the charter does not make mention. I 
think that is a proposition nobody will take issue with. If the 
statute b9 silent on the subject of interest and the principal office 
be established here or in the city of New York, the laws' govern- 
ing and fixing the rate of interest here or in New York, accordinsT 
as the principal office may be located at one place or the other^ 
will fix the rate of interest which may be there charged. So, too, 
if you locate one in the State of the Senator from Georgia, will 
not the law of the State of Georgia — this law being silent on the 
subject— regulate the rate of interest there charged? I suppose 
that it will. If this bank shall go into the Republic of Mexico and 
seek to secure by convention a right to do business there, as is con- 
templated, it will be required, no doubt, to conform to the laws of 
the Republic of Mexico with respect to the interest that it may 
charge upon its loans. 

But, Mr. President, if there be any doubt about that in the 
minds of lawyers— I have not anv doubt myself 

Mr. BACON. I am very frank "to say to the Senator that I think 
that proposition is correct. 

Mr. FORAKER. If it be correct, then the Senator from Georgia 
will agree with me that a rate of interest will be found to have 
been fixed if there be nothing said about it. But v\-hat I was go- 
ing to say is, if there be any doubt about it, I have no objection 
to a provision similar to that found in the national banking act 
being incorporated here. I turn to the national banking law, 
which evidently the Senator from Alabama had not read when he 
made that statement. I find it there provided, as it occurred to 
me it was when he referred to it, that the rate of interest to be 
charged by a national bank shall not be a rate named by the stat- 
ute creating and authorizing the bank, but the rate authorized by 
the laws of the State or Territory in which the particular bank is 
located and doing business. 

In the State of Ohio they may charge not higher than 8 per 
cent, because that is all that may be charged by banks authorized 
by the State of Ohio, and in the" absence of any express contract 
they will be allowed per cent. So the rate will vary according 
to the localities in which the business may be carried on. There- 
fore, Mr. President, this bill is not open "to valid objection, espe- 
cially when the national banking act is taken as a criterion, on 
the ground that there is no fixed rate of interest provided for in it. 

Now, let us look at some of the other objections made. But 
first let me read the enumeration of the powers of national banks 
as found in the national banking act. It will be found, as I read 
them, that the powers conferred upon national banks by the act 
are. with a single exception, that banks are not by the act made 
trustees or authorized to become such, quite as extensive as those 
that are conferred upon the international bank. In the first place, 
they have power to use a seal and a corporate name, etc., and by 
such name they may make contracts. We heard quite an out- 
burst of indignation from the Senator from Alabama as he read 
that this international bank should have power to contract. Did 
any sovereignty ever create a corporation without conferring that 
power? Certainly not. That is the first power conferred by 
Congress upon national banks, the power to contract, and it is a 
power conferred without any limitation whatsoever, a simple, 



24: 

naked power to make contracts quite as strong, qnite as nnqual- 
ifietl, as the power that is conferred by this proposed legislation. 

It may make contracts, suo and bo sued, complain and defend, in any court 
of law and equity as fully a-; natural persons; it may elect or appoint direct- 
ors, and by its board of directors appoint a president, vice-president, cashier, 
and other officers, define their duties, require bonds of them and fix the pen- 
alty thereof, dismiss said otticors or any of them at pleasure, and appoint 
others to till their places, and exorcise under this act all sucli incidental 
powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking by discount- 
mpr and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of cxchautje, and other 
evidences of debt; by recoiviDg deposits— 

But before I read further let me answer. The Senator arraigns 
this bill very severely because it confers upon this proposed bank 
all the incidental powers necessary to enable it to carry out the 
business which it was authorized to do. 

Mr, PETTUS. I made no comment on it. I said it gave that 
power. 

Mr. FORAKER. The Recoiid will show that to which I refer. 
I sat near the Senator and I distinctly heard him say that the 
main objection, the greatest power, was one that had been con- 
ferred in a back-handed way. 

]\Ir. PETTUS. That was" the power to buy up all other banks. 

Mr. FORAKER. Then I misunderstood the Senator. It is all 
in the same section, and in that same connection he spoke of the 
incidental powers. Then I am to understand tiie Senator from 
Alabama as not objecting, I suppose, to the conferrence of inci- 
dental powers, if the bank is to be created at all, such as are nec- 
essary to carry cut its purposes? 

Mr. PETTL'S. Of course I have no objection to that. 

Mr. FORAKER. We understood you— I did, and I thiiilc other 
Senators did— to object to the conferring of incidental powers. I 
will come to the other point presently. 

The incidental powers were conferred upon the national banks, 
and they enjoy them "and exercise under this act all such inciden- 
tal powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking 
by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of 
escliange. and other evidences of debt." 

Now, "by receiving deposits, by buying and selling exchange, 
coin, and bullion," and so on. 

One of the objections urged against tliis bank was that it was 
allowed to receive deposits without any limitation. I do not sup- 
pose any bank was ever limited as to the amount of deposits it 
should receive. But if so, that is an objection which might be 
made to the charter of the national banks, for that power is con- 
ferred upon the national banks without any limitation, "and prop- 
erly so. Why should not a bank be allowed to receive all the 
money that the patrons of the bank may see fit to confide to it for 
safe-ke3ping? It ssems to mo that one could not speak as the Sen- 
ator from Alabama has spoken with respect to this matter unless 
lie was without an adequate and appropriate appreciation of the 
place among the business institutions of this country that the 
banks necessarily fill. I want to read all the rest of the provision: 

By loaning money on personal security; by obtaining, issuing, and circu- 
lating notes according to the provisions of this act; and its board of direc- 
tors shall also have power to define and regulate, by by-laws, not inconsistent' 
with the provisions of this act, the manner in which its stock shall be trans- 
ferred, its directors elected or appointed, its officers appointed, its property 
transferred, its general business conducted, and all the privileges granted 
by this act to associations organized under it shall bo exercised and enjoyed; 
and Its usual business shall be transacted at an office or banking house located 
in the place specified in its organization certificate. 
3519 



25 

In other words, we find in reading the enumerated powers of 
the national banks that, with the single exception I have indi- 
cated, they are practically the same as are the powers conferred 
by this bill vipon this proposed international bank, and the fact is 
that the powers conferred upon the international bank were put 
into this bill with a copy of the powers conferred upon the na- 
tional banks before the man who drafted it. 

This provision was taken from that. There were some changes 
in phraseology, but no change in spirit, and there was no exten- 
sion of the power to the corporation except only that upon which 
I have commented, and this other power that i now come to speak 
of, the great power which was put in in a left-handed or back- 
handed way, as the Senator told us, the power to purchase and 
hold shares of the capital stock of any foreign corporation author- 
ized to transact banking business in foreign countrie.-. That, 
we are told, means that this international bank, with a S"), 000, 000 
capital, or with its .5;3"),0O0.O0O, if in the course of time it should 
come to be increased to that amount, is to b;iy up all the banks 
in the whole world. Mr. President, such a statement as that or 
such a suggestion as that it seems to me does injustice to the Sen- 
ator from Alabama. He certainly could not have thought 

JNIr. PETTUS. JNIr. President 

Tlie PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from Alabama? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

]\Ir. PETTUS. Does not the bill give the bank that power? 

Mr. FORAKER. The bill gives to the bank the power to o-\vti 
shares in foreign banks. 

Mr. PETTUS. In all of the banks? 

Mr. FORAKER. In foreign countries. It can not buy any 
shares in any bank in this country. The purpose of that must be 
manifest to every man who ever did transact any business, to 
every man who ever lived in the commercial world and had any 
relation to it. When this bank goes with its branch agency down 
into Mexico or into Venezuela or Argentina or to Chile it must at 
once, or it will so desire at least, engage in business. It may be- 
come essential to its success there that it shall buy some of the 
■eliares of some bank or all the shares of some bank that is already 
there. We want this bank not only to be, to exist, but we want it 
to be successful. We want it to have all the authority necessary to 
make its business successful when they may carry it on in foreign 
countries. They will have enough disadvantages to contend with. 
It seems to me tliat that is not an unreasonable provision, and that 
it is a ridiculous and absurd suggestion that becaxtse it has that 
power, manifestly an appropriate one for it to have under the cir- 
cumstances, it will go up and down throughout the world outside 
the United States and outside of Alabama buying the stock in all 
the banks that can be found, right and left, here and there, and 
everywhere. 

Mr. PETTUS. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio yield 
to the Senator from Alabama? 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir. 

]\Ir. PETTUS. The Senator from Ohio has the right to criticise, 
but he ought not to misrepresent me. 

JMr. FORAKER. I do not want to misrepresent the Senator 
from Alabama; and if he will state wherein I have misrepresented 
him, I will gladly make the correction. 
3519 



20 

Mr. PETTUS. I will. Tho Senator represented nie as saying 
that the bank wo;ild do that. I made no anch representation. I 
rei^rcocntcd that you gave them the po\Yer to do it. That is all I 
represented. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, and you have the power yourself to do 
it, so far as free agency is concerned; but I do not believe that it 
would be possible for you to do it, or desirable for j-ou to do it, or 
that you would undertake to do it. In regard to this, as to all 
other things, we must not lose our reason. We must look at the 
situation as it practically exists. The Senator is not going to buy 
up all tho stock of all the banks of the world. He would not, be- 
cause he does not want that stock. He has such a horror of ag- 
gregated capital that he would not have tliat stock if they would 
give it to him. and I suppose he could not buy it if ho wanted to 
for the lack of funds; and for the same reason that ho would not 
buy it neither would the international American bank to be in- 
corporated under this statute which we arc about to enact, as I 
hope we v/ill enact it, go and buy up all tho stock of all the other 
banks in all the other countries of the world. It would engage in 
the business it is authorized to do; and what would it want with 
stock in a bank in Germany, or stock in a bank in Austria, or 
stock in a baidv in Spain, or stock in a bank in France, or in any 
other country in the world, except where it was engaged in the busi- 
iness we authorize? It is likeh' to want— and it is because it is 
likely to want it that we have so provided here— stock in the 
banks of countries where it may locate its agencies to transact its 
business, and because it is likely to want that stock it ought to 
have the power. It is not going to acquire stock unless it will be 
to its advantage to acquire it. 

Mr. President, there will not be anj' increase of the capital stock 
of this bank, uialess there is a need for"^extended banking facilities— 
unless the business demands it. Tho men who engage in the bank- 
ing business do not needlessly, nor for the sake of tyrannizing over 
somebody, put their money into an enterprise like tliis. The names 
of the men who are recited as incorporators in this bill ought to bo 
a guaranty not only that they are in serious earnest, but that they 
are men of uprightness of character; men who want to do a legiti- 
mate business; men who will try to make their enterprise a business 
success, of course, but men who will not undertake to deprive any- 
body of any of his rights under the law, or aid in the supposed en- 
deavors that were referred to by the Senator from Alabama, to 
send this country on the road that Rome went, to the overthrow 
and destruction of the Republic. Such talk as that, Mr. Presi- 
dent, seems to me to be without any warrant whatever or without 
any excuse whatever. 

Another complaint was— and I .speak of these matters simply 
because they were relied upon by the Senator from Alabama— 
that the term for which this franchise is granted was changed, as 
shown by the committee's amendment, from twenty to fifty j-ears. 
That was due simply to the fact, which I think every business 
man can appreciate, that twenty years, although a long time in 
some respects, is not a long time in the life of a corporation, not 
a long time when it comes to an investment of money, not a long 
time when it comes to the building up of an enterprise that is to 
be scattered over this country by these branches as here proposed 
and scattered over other countries as here proposed. This enter- 
prise coxild hardly be successfully launched until half the period 
sr.io 



27 

of the franchise, if it were only twenty years, would have expired. 
No business man who has money to invest would care to invest 
his money in the risk and hazards of such an enterprise if almost 
as soon as they got over the difficulties of starting they would be 
obliged to apply for another franchise, when possibly they would 
find a majority of the Senate in accord with the views of the Sen- 
ator from Alabama, and thus be denied all recognition and rea- 
sonable consideration, even to the right to longer live. 

Another objection was that this bill provides for an unlimited 
number of branch agencies in this country, to be created eight at 
a time. I am not going to stop to comment upon that. I simply 
ask Senators to read the bill, and they will see the language in the 
bill is that the bank may establish agencies, but it never shall 
have more than eight in existence at any one time, not that they 
shall establish eight to-day and eight to-morrow aiid eight next 
year and eight some other time. 

Another objection was that we were required to keep, as I un- 
derstood the Senator— I hope I may have his attention here, be- 
cause, as I said a while ago, I do not want to misrepresent him — 
I understood him to say that the reserve was limited to 25 per 
cent of the capital stock. If I am in error about that, I hope he 
will correct me. The Senator made that statement while com- 
menting upon the eighth clause of section 7. which contains a 
provision "to loan money on personal securitj*, subject to the 
limits hereinafter imposed, and to borrow money," and so forth, 
and so on. 

The reserve, Mr. President, is not 2") per cent of its capital stock, 
but 23 per cent of its deposits, whatever they may be, and that, as 
I stated yesterday in the colloquy that here ensued, has been held 
by those engaged in the banking business, who have no interest 
whatever in this proposed bank, to have been proven by experi- 
ence to be a sufficient reserve. 

I do not wisli to detain the Senate longer. I only want to say, 
in conclusion, that the Committee on Foreign Relations have given 
to this bill their most careful consideration. They examined all 
the questions that were brought to their attention in regard to it — 
the legal questions, the question of policy, the question of trade, 
the question of the results likely to flow from it. They took every- 
thing into the most careful consideration, and thenj by a unani- 
mous vote, reported the bill with the amendments as shown when 
the bill was brought under consideration yesterday. 

We believed it to be a good measure: we believed that this 
country ought to establish an international American bank. 
There was a difference of opinion in the committee as to whether 
this bank should be authorized to do business alone in the West- 
ern Hemisphere, or whether it should be authorized to do busi- 
ness also in the Orient, in China, in Japan, and in other countries. 
I was of the opinion that it ought to be without limitation in that 
respect, for I do not know any reason why, if we are to have an 
international bank for the purpose of facilitating exchanges and 
promoting our international commercial relations, it should be 
limited in any respect whatever as to the field of its operations. 
It will not go where there is not a necessity for it, and wherever 
there is a necessity for it, there it ought to go. 
_ I hope, Mr. President, I have not passed over any of the objec- 
tions of the Senator from Alabama which give any concern to any- 
one. I have tried to answer all of them as well as I might be able 
3159 



28 

to, and I believe I have answered all of them; at least a reference 
to my notes does not suggest any other points than those I have 
already commented upon. 

•::• -;:- -::• * * » * 

Mr. FORAKER. AYill the Senator from Georgia allow me to 
iuterrui^t him'.^ 

Mr. BACON. Certainly. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not think the Senator from Georgia 
could have been in the Chamber when in the course of my remarks 
a few miniTtes ago I dwelt upon the point made by him yesterday 
when I was asked to designate the express provision in the pro- 
posed statute that clothes this bank with a governmental func- 
tion. I read an authority, a decision of our Supreme Court, to 
the eflect that it is not necessary to express in a statute the gov- 
ernmental function which the statute is designed to authorize the 
agency created by the Government to perform; that it is for the 
court to determine whether or not the corporation, by the exer- 
cise of the power conferred, does in fact do anything that can be 
construed or justly held by the court to be in the nature of a regu- 
lation of commerce. I do not think the Senator could have heard 
the decision. 

In that connection I pointed out that the proposed statute does, 
as decided in other cases to which I called attention, regulate and 
deal with commerce in the sense that negotiable instruments, 
drafts, and bills of exchange are instrumentalities, to use the lan- 
guage of the Supreme Court of the United States, necessary in 
the consummation of these transactions which our people are hav- 
ing with tlie people of other countries, and anything that relates 
to these instrumentalities is in the nature of a regulation of com- 
merce. Of course ifc is only in that sense— it has never been 
claimed in any other — that this is an agency created by the Gov- 
ernment to aid in the regulation of commerce among the States 
and with foreign countries. 

Mr. BACON. I understand. I did hear the Senator from Ohio 
state that proposition, and I heard him read an authority upon it. 
I understand the proposition of the Senator to be this, then, that 
the fact that a bank is clothed with the power to issue bills of ex- 
change and other instrumentalities by which commerce is carried 
on between different countries clothes it Vv'ith such a governmental 
function in the regulation of commerce as puts it within the juris- 
diction of Congress to charter such an institution. If that propo- 
sition is correct 

Mr. FORAKER. The bank is required to make provision for 
the issuing of bills of exchange and for all these branches that are 
to be established in other ctuintries. The bank is rc(iuii'ed to do 
tho.se things which are essential to the facilitating of our business. 

Mr. BACON. If that proposition is true, then it is true that in 
all cases Congress has the constitutional power to charter banks, 
because all banks deal in those things which ci'eate these agencies 
bv whicli interstate and foreign commerce is carried on. 

"Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will pardon me, all banks do 
not have the authority, as I iindertook to say j-esterday. to estab- 
lish, by reason of the ])0wers conferred upon them in tlieir char- 
ter, branches in other States than those States in which they are 
chartered, and especially are they without power to establish 
branches and conduct business in other countries: and tlie Con- 
gress is the only body in all this country —I mean there is no State 

3159 



VJ 



29 

legislature with such authority— which has authority to confer 
any sucli power upon any incorporated company. 

Mr. BACON. I utterly deny the proposition that this Govern- 
ment can confer upon a corporation any greater powers to be ex- 
ercised beyond the borders of this jurisdiction than the State can 
confer upon a corporation, and I read from a decision which I 
cited yesterday from memory. I now have it before me. 

Mr. FORAKER. I did not mean to state the proposition exactly 
as the Senator from Georgia has stated it. If he will allow me to 
interrupt him. I did not mean to say that a corporation created 
by a State, for instance, could not, by the comity of another State, 
go into that State and there transact the same kind of business 
that it was authorized to transact at home. But I do not believe, 
for instance, that a bank chartered by the State of Georgia could, 
within the contemplation of that charter, legitimately go into tho 
State of Kentucky and there establish and carry on a banking- 
business, unless the Senator has something in his constitution and 
laws governing the granting of general charters very different 
from what we have in our State. 

Mr. BACON. I understand the Senator, then, to state as a gen- 
eral proposition that a bank chartered in one State can not do 
business in another State, unless that bank is specifically author-- 
ized in its charter so to do, and that when so authorized it can 
do it. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not say at all that they can not trans- 
act any business. Of course, if they loaned money to a man who 
would go off into another State and reliise to pay it, they could 
follov,' him there and sue him. They could tran.-act such business 
as might be necessary to carry on their business in that respect; 
but I mean to say that it is not within the contemplation of the 
charter, at least ordinarily, that they should establish a bank in 
tho State v,^here they are chartered and another bank in each of 
the other forty-four States. 

Mr. BACON. Agencies in the other States? 

Mr. FORAKER. I mean banks. They may have an agent pos- 
sibly in some particular case for some particular business, but 
what I say is this: Take my own State, for illustration, for I know 
what the constitution and laws are in that particular and gener- 
ally. I do not believe that a State bank chartered to do business 
in the State of Ohio could, in addition to establishing its banking 
house and conducting its business within that State, go also into 
each and every other State in the Union by virtue of tho power 
conferred upon it by its charter from Ohio, and in each and every 
other State establish a bank and conduct business as though thero 
incorporated. Of course they would have to do it by comity if at 
all. But even in that way I think it would be ultra vires to go 
and do business in that manner. 

Mr. BACON. When the Senator speaks about going into an- 
other State and establishing a bank, 1 do not suppose he means 
what he says. If when he says " establish a bank " he means es' 
tablish an independent bank, a bank complete of itself, that can 
only be done by the authority of the jurisdiction in which it is 
proposed to set it up. 

Mr. FORAKER. Ah, but 

!Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me a moment, does 
the Senator understand that this bill authorizes not only the estab- 
lishment of a bank in tho District of Columbia, but that under 

3519 



30 

this charter an independent bank can be established in every other 
State? 

Mr. FORAKER. Not at all. I am talking abont the supposi- 
titious case which the Senator put a while ago of a bank under- 
taking to do business in other States than the State in which it 
was chartered, and I am not talking ab-uut the actual case bcfora 
US, which provides lor one principal ollice aiul such number of 
lirancli banks as may be established, all belonging to the samo 
corporation. 

Mr. BAUOX. Nobody that I know of ovi-r suggested any other 
expansion of a parent bunk except in the way last indicated by 
the Senator. 

Mr. FORAKER. I can put it plain enough so that there cer- 
tainly can not be any difference as to the facts we are talking 
about. I do not believe, for instance, that n bank chartert'd 
under the law of Minnesota, authorized by the charter of that 
State to carry on the banking business in that State, could also, 
in addition to having its banlc tlu-re, go to the city of New Ycjrk 
and thore engage in the banking Imsiness. keeping a banking 
house there and conducting a banking business. I may bo in 
error about it, but I do not Ijelicve that any corporate authority 
to do that would be conferred by the charter granted by tin 
State, at least not under our constitution. 

Mr. BACON. I have great res])ect for the Senator from Ohio, 
but he is certainly mistaken in that proposition. That question 
was settled in the case which I cited from memory yesterday and 
which I now hold in my hand, that of the Bank of Augusta 
against Earle, in Vi Peters, in which there is a ver.v learned and 
elaborate discussion of the question of extraterritorial powers 
upon the part of a bank, in an opinion delivered in behalf of the 
court by Chief Justice Marshall, and in which the doctrine is 
clearly laid down that while it is true that a corporation is limited 
in its piiwers to the jurisdiction of the authority by which it is 
created, it nevertheless can, with the consent, express or implied, 
of other jurisdictions, exercise in those jurisdictions all the cor- 
porate powers which are granted to it by the parent from which 
it derives its being, of course sul)ject to "the limitation that there 
must V)e no power exercised in that foreign jurisdiction conflict- 
ing with the law in that jurisdiction. 

Mr. FORAKER. In other words, if the Senator will allow me, 
as I understand that decision (it is one with which every Jawj'er 
is familiar), the consent granted to the bank to do business in a 
foreign jurisdiction was held to be the equivalent of a charter 
froTu that jurisdiction upon those terms. 

Mr. BACON. Ofcour.se. 

Mr. FORAKER. That makes a wholly different case from that 
which we have been talking about. 

Mr. BACON. No, it is exactly what I have been sajing all the 
time; but the Senator has been putting a case which did not exist. 
"SVhen he spoke about there being an independent bank as a branch 
of the origmal bank, of course it must be a branch and nothing 
else. 

Mr. FORAKER. But, if the Senator will allow me, the point 
I make is that it does not get the power to go into the other State 
by the charter from the State in which it is incorporated, but by 
comity, which, when consent is granted, is the equivalent of a new 
charter granted by the State without regard to the other. 

Mr, BACON. It is not the equivalent of a new charter. It is 



31 

true it gets the riglit to exercise those powers by the consent of 
the State in which it exercises them, bnt the fact that it has the 
power is due to the charter granted to it by the parent from which 
it derived its being, There can be no possible doubt about that 
question. 

The point I am coming to is this: If there is to be the grant of 
this charter, there ought to be a good reason for it. If it be true 
that it was not within the original design that the Federal Gov- 
ernment should engage in the granting of corporate powers to 
companies, to be exercised outside of its immediate .iurisdiction — 
outside of the District of Columbia and the Territories, I mean — 
then there ought to be apparent some reason for the exercise of 
such a power at this time as will show that it is necessarj' that it 
should bo done, even if there is a doubt about the power, conceel- 
ing for the purpose of argument that it is proper that it should be 
done. I want to analyze and see what is the necessity. 

In the first place, 1 go back to the proposition which I was en- 
deavoring to state when I got into the colloquy with the Senator 
from Ohio, that there is no possible power which tho United 
States Government can confer upon this company to be exercised 
outside of the District of Columbia and the Territories of tho 
United States that could not be conferred upon it by the State of 
New York, and I stand upon that as a legal proposition. I say it 
can not possibly be controverted that the State of New York has 
the power to confer upon a company chartered by it every power 
to be exercised either within the State of New York or outside of 
the State of New York, that the United States Government could 
confer upon a company chartered for that purpose. 

Mr. FORAKEU. I take issue with the Senator upon that propo- 
sition in this way: I say that tho State of New York may cliarter 
a bank. I see there is some difference of opinion among the law- 
yers here who have expres?:ed themselves in regard to this matter. 
My idea is that the State of New York has no power to authorize 
a bank to do a banking business outside of its territorial jurisdic- 
tion. It may go beyond tho State and so engage by comity, if 
allowed to do so by the other States; but the National Government 
docs have authority to incorporate a bank that can do business in 
the District of Columbia or in tiie State of New York or any other 
State, if it sees fit to do so. 

]Mr. BACON. Or in any foreign country? 

Mr. FORAKER. No, sir; except by comity. Of course that 
is a matter of convention. But the Senator will remember that 
from the beginning my contention has been that there were two 
reasons why this bank should be incorporated by the National 
Government instead of by Pome State, one being that no State can 
give to a bank incorporated by it authoritj'to go, without regard- 
ing the wishes of that other State, into another State in thiscoim- 
try to do business. I claim that the National Government can 
give this bank that power, becaxase in the way I have pointed out 
it is discharging a Government purpose in the promotion of our 
trade with other countries, thereby assisting in the regulation of 
commerce. 

Mr. BACON. If the Senator will permit me, I suggest that 
while of course I am very glad to be inteiTupted and delighted to 
answer any question to the extent of my ability, I can not possibly 
present an argument if the Senator interjects between each propo- 
sition an argument upon his side. I say it with the utmost kind- 
ness. 

3519 



r 



32 

Mr. FORAKER. I hec; pardon. The Senator onght not to look 
at nie so appealingly and invitingly. Ho has sucli a gracious and 
inviting way that it is impossible to resist the temptation to answer 
him. 

]Mr. BACON. The Senator answers in such an exceedingly 
pleasant way that it is with very great reluctance that I ask him 
to let me proceed with some degree of continuity. I imderstand 
the proposition of the Senator to he this, and I hope 1 may have 
his attention even if I do run the risk of interruption. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am always delighted to give the Senator 
my attention. 

Mr. BACON. I understand the proposition of the Senator to be 
this, and I am glad ho has made it clear, that one purpose of this 
charter is to incorporate a banking company which, according to 
his contention, will have the right to do business in each and every 
State of this Union, not by the consent of that State, but without 
the consent of that State and in spite of the denial of that State. 

Mr. FORAKER. In each State, so far as authorized by the 
charter. It allows only eight diiferent locations for branches. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator picks out the particular States. I3 
that it? 

Mr. FORAKER. I dislike to interrupt the Senator. 

Mr. BACON. It is all right. I asked the question. 

Mr. FORAKER. The charter provides that this bank shall 
have its principal office in the city of Washington or in New York 
and eight branch offices located at such points as its directors may 
select, to be approved, etc. 

Mr. BACON. The proposition is that so far as these eight 
States in which the branches are to be located are concerned, the 
corporation is to have the right to do business not by virtue of 
the comity of the States or by their consent, but by virtue of the 
command of the Federal Government that it shall have it. 

Mr. FORAKER. That is my view of it. 

Mr. BACON. I say that proposition is utterly without authority 
in any provision of the Constitution. We are not to deal in refine- 
ments. If the argument of the learned Senator is correct, then 
the general proposition is practically established that it is within 
the power of the Federal Government, by any peculiar provisions 
which it may see proper to insert in a charter, to impose upon 
States, regardless of the wishes and consent of those States, cor- 
porations to do a banking business within the confines of those 
States. 

Mr. FORAKER. I dislike to do so, but will the Senator allow 
me to interrupt him again? 

Mr. BACON. Certainly. 

Mr. FORAKER. My contention is what I have stated it to be, 
because, in my opinion, this bank is to discharge governmental 
functions in the sense in which I have explained. It is an agency 
established by the Government to be used in the regulation of 
commerce among the States and with foreign countries, and there- 
fore something that is within the purview of the powers conferred 
by the Constitution upon the Congress, and whenever it comes to 
the establishment of that kind of an agency, that being admitted, 
I think the Senator from Georgia will agree with me that that 
kind of an agency may go into any State. 

Mr. BACON. With all due respect to the Senator from Ohio, I 
desire to say that I regard the proposition that this is for the pur- 
pose of performing a governmental function as a mere device to 

3519 



33 

get a charter from the Government of the United States for an 
altogether diflei"ent purpose. 

Mr. FoRAKERrose, 

Mr. BACON. Now. if the Senator will pardon me a moment 

Mr. FORAKER. No; what I want to say was that that, of 
course, is a matter of opinion. 

Mr. BACON. I was going to give my reason for it. 

Mr. FORAKER. As a matter of opinion your argument is 
legitimate. My proposition was, conceding the character of the 
organization to be what I have claimed for it, you would certainly 
agree that it could go into any State withovit regard to the wish 
of the State. 

* * * -::• « * «- 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator from Montana will allow me, 
I was about to suggest that I do not wish to detain the Senate 
more than a few moments. I do not wish to make any remarks. 
I wish to call attention to some authorities, and I would be pleased 
to have them go into the Record immediately following the argu- 
ment that has just been made by the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia. They are in support of the proposition I was trying to 
contend for in the very unequal colloquy I had with him. 

Mr, CARTER. I understand, then, that it will be agreeable to 
the Senator immediately after concluding his remarks? 

Mr. FORAKER, Immediately after I read these authorities. 
There are only three of them, ' In the case of Gloucester Ferry 
Company rs, Pennsylvania (114 U, S., 203), discussing the ques- 
tion of commerce as used in the Constitution in that clause which 
authorizes Congress to regulate it, the Supreme Court say: 

The power to i-egulato that commorco— 

Among the States — 

as well as commerce with foreign nations, vested in Congress, is the power 
to prescribe the rules by which it shall be governed— that is, the conditions 
upon which it shall be conducted; to determine when it shall be free and 
when subject to duties or other exactions. The power also embraces within 
its control all the instrumentalities by which that commerce may be carried 
on and the means by which it may be aided and encouraged. The subjects, 
therefore, upon which the power may be exerted are of infinite variety. 

It embraces all the instrumentalities that may be employed. 

In the case of McCall vs. California (loO U. S., 104), Mr. Justice 
Lamar quotes with approval from Pomeroys Constitutional Law 
as follows, speaking of this i:)ower: 

It includes the fact of intercourse and of traffic and the subject-matter of 
intercourse and traffic. The fact of intercourse and traffic, again, embraces 
all the means, instruments, and places by and in which intercourse and traffic 
are carried on, and further still, comprehends the act of carrying them on at 
these places and by and wi th these means. The subject-matter of intercourss 
or traffic may be either things, goods, chattels, merchandise, or persons. All 
these may therefore be regulated. 

Then, in the case of Railroad Companv vs. National Bank (103 
U. S., 14), Mr. Justice Clifford said: 

Bills of exchange and promissory notes are commercial pavier in the strict- 
est sense, and as such must ever bo regarded as favored instruments, as well 
on account of their negotiable quality as their univer.sal convenience in mer- 
cantile affairs. Everywhere the rule is that they may be transferred by in- 
dorsement, or when indorsed in blank or made payable to bearer they are 
transferable by mere delivery. International regulations encourage their 
use as a safe and convenient medium for the settlement of Italances among 
mercantile men of different nations, and any course of judicial decision cal- 
culated to restrain or impede their full and unembarrassed circulation for 
the purposes of foreign or domestic trade would be contrary to the soundest 
principles of public policy. 

3519-3 



34 

There is only one more that I wish to detain the Senate with 
and call attention to. In tho case of Nathan vj. Louisiana (8 
Howard, page 73), Mr. Justice McLean said: 

Money is admitted to bo an instrument of oominerco, and so is a bill of ox- 
change; and upon this ground it is insisted that a tax npon an exchange 
broker is a tax upon tho instruments of commerce. * * * No one can 
claim an exemption from a fjeneral tax on his business within the State on 
the ground that the products sold may be usid in commerce. 

Those authorities, taken in connection with those I cited in my 
argument this afternoon, show conclusively, as it seems to me, that 
bills of exchange and notes and drafts and other commercial paptr 
of the character specified, which this bank is authorized to deal 
in for tho benefit of this trade, are instrumentalities of commerce. 

The other authorities which I cited were to the effect that any- 
thing affecting and providing for the use of these instrumentali- 
ties of commerce was an appropriate regulation of commerce 
within the meaning of the constitutional provision authorizing 
Congress to exercise that power. So it is that I say to the Sena- 
tor from Georgia that we resort to a legitimate device, if he wants 
to use that term at all. I mean it is not a device in any repre- 
hensible sense, if the word "device " is to be used, but it is perfectly 
legitimate, if you want to have the benefits of an international 
bank, chartered by the National Government, to invest it with a 
power that will bring it within the purview of the Constitution, 
and it is not a matter to be complained of that it is made consti- 
tutional by that kind of a provision. 

Mr. BACON. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a ques- 
tion before he takes his seat? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. BACON. Of course the Senator will recognize the fact that 
transportation of goods from one State to another is in the strict- 
est sense interstate commerce. 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. BACON. Then the proposition contended for by the Sena- 
tor would put it in the power of Congress, as the exercise of one 
of its legitimate functions, to charter a railroad not for the pur- 
pose of carrying the mails, not for the purpose of tran.sporting 
troops, but because, forsooth, it would be engaged in the trans- 
portation of freight from one State to another. That being the 
case, then, from the beginning of a session through to its conclu- 
sion, we should be granting railroad charters from one end of this 
Gountry to the other. 

Mr. FORAKER. One of the opinions of tho Supreme Court I 
read from this afternoon was exactly that; the case of the Chero- 
kee Nation against the Kansas Railway. 

l\lr. BACON. Is it not there the governmental function of car- 
rying the mails and transporting troops? 

Mr. FORAKER. No, sir; not at all. In the language of the 
court, the Supreme Court found that the railroad there in ques- 
tion, although chartered by a State, was an agency employed by 
the National Government in the regulation of commerce between 
the States because it passed through the Territory and into the ad- 
joining State. 

Mr. BACON. I was speaking of the chartering of the company, 
not of the use. 

Mr. FORAKER. Surely if it be competent for the National 
Government to select a railroad that has already been chartered 
by a State and make it an agency in the regulation of commerce, 

3519 



35 

it would be competent for the National Government to directly 
charter that railroad company for that purpose. Let me read 
again. 

Mr. GRAY. I ask the Senator to read it. 

Mr. FOR AKER. Yes, I will. This is the case of the Cherokee 
3^ation vs. The Kansas Railway, lo.j United States, 641. 

Mr. BACON. That is through a Territory of the United States, 
not through a State. 

Mr. FORAKER. Now, we will see: 

Congres?; has power to regulate commerca not only with foreign nations 
and among the several States, but with the Indian tribes. It is not necessary 
that an act of Congress should express in words the purpose for which it was 
passed. 

I read this authority this afternoon in answer to the Senator's 
question of yesterday, or rather his requirement of yesterday, that 
I should put my finger upon the express declaration in this bill 
that it was intended to subserve some specified governmental pur- 
pose. It is not necessary, say the Supreme Court, that there 
should be any such expression. They further say: 

The court will determine for itself whether the means employed by Con- 
gress have any relation to the powers granted by the Constitution. The rail- 
road which the defendant was authorized to construct and maintain will 
have, if constructed and put into operation, direct relation to commerce with 
the Indian tribes, as well as with commerce among the States, especially with 
the States immediately north and south of the Indian Territory. It is true 
that the company authorized to construct and maintain it is a corporation 
created by the laws of a State, but it is none the less a fit instrumentality to 
accomplish the public objects contemplated by the act of 1884. 

That act was an act authorizing it to exercise the power of emi- 
nent domain in procuring a right of way through the Indian Ter- 
ritory, and this litigation arose in connection with the effort to 
convey property for that purpose. 

other means might have been employed, but those designated in that act, 
although not indispensably necessary to accomplish the end in view, are ap- 
propriate and conducive to that end, and therefore within the power of Con- 
gress to adopt. 

It seems to me that this is a case which absolutely and conchi- 
sively disposes of the entire contention of the Senator. It was 
not expressed in the act that there was any governmental func- 
tion to be performed, any particular purpose to be subserved, but 
Congress simply empowered that railroad to exercise the right of 
eminent domain, and in the exercise of that right this litigation 
arose and tlie Supreme Court said the company had a right to go 
there and do what it was doing, and that Congress had a right to 
authorize it to go there, because it was an instrumentality em- 
ployed in connection with interstate commerce. 

Mr. BACON. The exercise of the right of eminent domain in a 
Territory of the United States was the particular point in issue, 
vs-as it not? 

Mr. FORAKER. No, not so. 

Mr. BACON. It was litigation over lands in the Indian Terri- 
torj'. 

Mr. FORAKER. The litigation, I believe, arose in that way. 
From what I have read here (there is not enough quoted here, 
but I had the case here this afternoon), the decision, I imagine, 
did not rest upon that point at all. The question was whether 
or not the United States Government could select a corporation 
chartered by a State and make it an instrumentality in the regu- 
lation of commerce and whether or not there was in fact any regu- 
lation of commerce, and the Supreme Court of the United States 
3519 



^> 



36 

said it (lid not make any difference that it was chartered by a State 
instead of by the United States, and that altliough nothing was 
eaid in the act of IbSi about roguhiting commerce, yet the court 
coukl see that it was such regulation, because the road was inter- 
state, and was engaged in facilitating commerce. 

Mr. GRAY. If the Senator will allow me, ho contends, then, 
that the principle in that decision would go so far as to have au- 
thorized Congress to have conferred the power of eminent domain 
ni)on thatcorjjoration, to be exercised within the State of Kansas, 
if it had not that power from the State otherwise? Is that the 
view the Senator takes of the principle involved in that decision? 

3Ir. FORAKER. The Senator v*ill excuse me; I was trying to 
find the case, and did not hear his question. 

Mr. GRAY. I ask the Senator if the view lie takes of the prin- 
ciple in that decision is that the Congress of the United States 
would have been authorized to have empowered the railroad com- 
pany to have exercised the right of eminent domain within the 
State of Kansas if it had Ijeen necessary to do so, or if the State of 
Kansas had not imbued the company with that power? 

Mr. FORAKER. Before I answer the Senator I want to get the 
autliority. for fear I have confused the case as to how this litigation 
arose. I have it here, and by reading from the syllabus you will 
see in a moment. 1 find 1 was right about it. Preceding the quo- 
tation that is made, and which I read, occurs the following state- 
ment in regard to the case: 

In Cherokee Nation fs. Kansas Railway, 13.5 United States, (541. the Suprome 
Court sustained n grant of tlie power of eminent domain to a Kansas corpo- 
ration, made by act of Conprress, in relation to lauds in the Indian 'ierritory 
owned and occupied by an Indian tribe. 

I do not see anything that, in my opinion, would warrant the 
inference that the decision went so far as to authorize Congress 
to confer the power of eminent domain upon the Kansas corpora- 
tion, to be exerci.sed within the State of Kansas. 1 do not sup- 
pose it would, unless it was for some governmental agency, like 
carrying the mails, or something for which it became absolutely 
necessary. There might be an exception to that rule; I did not 
attach any importance to how the litigation arose. The important 
feature of the case is that there was an agency which the Na- 
tional Government did not create, but simply clothed with certain 
powers, in the exercise of which the controversy occurred which 
gave rise to litigation, in which the Supreme Court held that be- 
cause the railroad did go through the Territory and the States to 
the soiith and north of it it was an instrument that could be era- 
ployed in the regulation of commerce; and that idea was not 
negatived by the fact that Congress had not said anything on that 
point in the statute, in which there was no allusion to the regula- 
tion of commerce; no allusion to any agency of Government on 
the part of this instrumentality. 

I regret that I have occupied the time of the Senate so long. 

3319 



37 

June 16, 1S9S. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator if the bank 
could not do all those things and never do a particle of business 
that touched commerce? Does the simple fact that the Comp- 
troller of the Currency may pass upon the question when they 
shall do business make "the bank an agency of commerce? 

Mr. HOAR. May I ask the Senator from Louisiana, in this 
connection, if it has not been uniformly held that the encourage- 
ment and promotion of foreign commei-ce constitute a regulation 
of it? 

Mr. CAFFERY. Certainly. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator another qiiestion. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I have not answered the first one. 

Mr. TELLER. Very well. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me, I will call his 
attention to one provision of the bill which I think will furnish a 
complete answer to the inquiry of the Senator from Colorado. 

Mr. TELLER. I wish the Senator woultl. 

Mr. FORAKER. That is the provision in regard to the sale of 
bills of exchange. This commerce which we are talking about 
can not be carried on without the instrumentality of a bill of 
exchange. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to say that I do not think that is 
an agency of commerce anymore than making a promissory note 
is. I will have something to say about that later. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have a different opinion about it, and I 
think the Supreme Court has held that bills of exchange are in- 
strumentalities of commerce. 

Mr. TELLER. The Supreme Court has held just the reverse 
of that. If the Senator can show any case where they ever held 
that wav. I will be glad to see it. They have held the reverse of 
that. 

Mr. FORAKER. Day before yesterday I cited an authority to 
that effect, as I understood it. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to see it. 

Mr. FORAKER. I should like to see where they held to the 
contrary. 

****** ■"• 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, I do not wish to detain the 
Senate, except only very briefly to answer the suggestions of the 
colloquy which occurred a moment ago with the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Telleu | . I do not know that I exactly understood 
the Senator from Colorado, but I can state how I understood him, 
and I will be obliged to him if he will correct me if I misunder- 
stood him. I understood him to deny that bills of exchange are 
instruments of commerce. 

Mr. TELLER. No; I did not say that. I said they were not 
commerce. They may be instruments of commerce, 

Mr. FORAKER. But I never contended, and I have never heard 
anyone else contend, that bills of exchange are commerce; but it 
has been contended from the beginning of this debate, throughout 
this controversy, that bills of exchange are instruments of com- 
merce. 

Mr. TELLER. Certainly they are. but there must be more than 

that in this bill, in my judgment, to make an act of incorporation, 

that the persons to be incorporated are engaged in creating simply 

instruments of commerce. 1 said a shipbuilder is doing the same 

3519 



I' 

11 






38 

IhiiiK. ami the man who gets out the masts of a ship is doing tlio 
KHiUf thing; but the getting out of ma^ts from the forests of Alaska 
or suuie other region do s not nuike tliat oecupalion connueree. 

Mr. FORAKEU. The Senator from Colorado is quito right' 
about that; but inasmuch as ships are designed tobo iuslruments 
of commerce, it would bo quite competent for Congress to pre- 
Bcrilto liow ships should be constructed and what kind of masts 
should be provided in order that there might be security in tho 
navigation of ships and in order tliat the trausactiou of commer- 
cial business might be facilitated. 

Mr. TELLER. Tluit would bo an entirely different thing. 
That Would \- • ' < ■ ' ■ ' ' t| insti of 

coui se, (»l eouii I , .te<)ly . an 

to what sliall be tiie ciiaracter ot sliijipint;, ami ail that. 

Mr. FORAKER. Then it would be logi.slating concerning nn 
instrumentality of cctmmerce in its relation to comuiereo, and 
tliat would Ik.' I ■ ' n of c .•. ,So, too. I answer tho 

.'Senator from i .it the ii. lingof a bill ot exiliange 

would not. of course, Le commerce; but 'when a bill of excliango 
is issued in coll?" ' ' 'i with u commerciiil transaction that it is 
comi>etcnt for ' a to provide a regulation for, then it is a 

' ' •' '' ress ia competent to regu- 

! ■ ■ 

Air. CAFFERV. 1 wiii suggest to the Senator from Ohio that 
ships are regulated. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes; I know they are. 

!^Ir. CAFFERY. They have to run in a certain way; they have 
to have a certain numler of i)ilots; they have to have a certain 
number of lights; thev have to keep the road in a certain way; j 

ami thev are ipgulatoct down to the luost minute particular. 

Mr. TELLER. That is not denied at all. 

Mr. FORAKER. I un ; 1 the Sen.itor from ( ' • to .' 

call upon me to cite him l iihority showing that i - ex- L 

change were instruments of commerce. T. 

.Mr. TELLER. Oh, no: I had no idea of that. I 

Mr. F» >RAKER. I quote from 7 Howard f) 

^Ir. TELLER. It is not commerce. i* 

^Ir. FORAKER. 1 will come to that in a moment. But, inns- * 

much as the authority was called for, as I understood it, I want it j ■ 

t« go into the I; I stated \ ' occun ' ' 

1 had cited an :. ty in the c- lu toth- " 

that bills of exchange are instruments of commerce. I find i have ; 

cited a number. The authority I had particularly in mind was 
the Cii-se of Nathan vx. Louisiana. In 7 Howard, page I'-i, the second | 

paragraph of the svllabus of which is as follows. f 

:Mr. TELLER. I have that ra.^e before me. 

Mr. FORAKER. It is as follows: 

Foreicm bills of excbanpo are instruments ol cjinmcrco, f 

That is as much as I need read of it. 

Mr. TELLER. I should like to read a brief extract from tho 
sr.me case, where the court say: 

The individual thus using his money and credit — 
Say th*^ court — 

i*< r '•f'. lint in f^pr^lyint; nn instrnmont nf ctwrncTriK 

He I ;t thiintheshipbuildtjr, without wh'rse laVxirforoiifn 

commerce could not lie carried on. . 

ojl'J 



t 



;]0 

Mr. FORAKER. T apprehend there is really no difference of 
opinion between the ISenator from Colorado and myself as to what 
a bill of excliunge is in its relation to commerce: certainly it is 
aj^reed that a bill of exchange is an instrument of commerce. 
That being the case I call attention to the provision with respect 
to the issue of bills of exchange found in this bill on page 1."). 
Senators must have observed that, after enumerating the powers 
of this jiroposed corporation, the bill then goes on to prescribe 
certain duties it shall perform, certain things it shall do. Among 
other things it must do is the following: 

Tlio tlire<'tors slmll iilso, within two years after the eommencpmeiit of the 
pxi.stonco of said oorporation. opoii one such braiuli oflico in Moxico, one in 
thd WcBt Indies, and two in South America, at such points as the director.'* 
shall determine, for the regular .sale of bills of cvchanye drawn upon the 
I>rincipal ofhce i>r the company, and for the transaction ot such other clas,se.s 
of business lus the directors may desij,'iiate: and from and after the establish- 
ment of each of 3U>ii branch olHcestlie siiid coi-poration shall re;;ularly sell 
bills of exchange at its i)rincip;d ollice, drawn upon the s.iid braui.-h oflices. 

Mr. TELLER, I should like to ask the Senator if he thinks 
Congress gets jurisdiction of this fiuestion by reason of the fact 
that this corporation is authorized to have a branch in Mexico, 
for instance? If he does, then I should like t<» ])ropound another 
question: What beconies of our .iurisdiction if Mexico declines to 
allow the establishment of such an exchange there? 

Mr. I'OHAKER. Jt would not alTect the constitutionality of 
this bill if M(>.\ico should decline. I do not apprehend that 
Mexico will. 

Mr. TELLER. No. 

Mr. FoRAKlCR. It wotild not make any difference if every 
foreign country slionld decline to enter into a convention to allow 
the bank to go there: it would still remain the fact that it would 
be a law authorizing an agency to be used in the regulation of 
commerce between the States, and that would be sufficient, so far 
as its constitutionality is concerned. It does not depend, there- 
fore, if 1 may answer "that proposition further, upon what we are 
to do in foreign countries, because we know if this bill becomes a 
law, and is upheld, then it creates a governmental agency to aid 
in the regulation of commerce between tlie States, and that the 
law will be upheld as constitutional on that account, without re- 
gard to what foreign countries may do. The law will be enacted, 
if enacted at all, with knowledge" to the lawmaking power that 
foreign countries may decline to enter into any convention. But 
we know the States can not decline: they have no voice about it; 
this being a company of the character that has been indicated, the 
National Government has a right to say it shall go into any State 
where it may see fit to send it for its purposes. 

Mr. TELLER. It seems to me that if the Senator is right in 
his contention that the issue of bills of exchange is commerce 
within the meaning of the Constitution, then every bank in the 
State of New York, every private bank, every State bank, without 
issuing money, but which issues a bill of exchange on another 
State or another country, is subject to national control. That, it 
seems to me, would be news to the country. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have not said or intimated that the mere 
issuing of a bill of exchange is commerce. What I have said is 
that they are instruments of commerce; and if 1 can get an oppor- 
tunity. I want to show that this bill jjvovides with respect to them 
in their relation to commerce in such manner as to amount to a 
regulation of commerce. But, Mr. President, recurring to the 
3.-.1U 



/ 



40 

Senator's remark, I have no question that Congress has the right 
to regulate bills of exchange issued by private banks. I do not 
Bee, with all respect to the Senator, that there is any force in that 
snggestion. The power of Congress to regulate tlie issue of these 
instruments of commerce does not depend on the character of the 
bank that issues them. 

Mr. TELLER. It is not simply to regulate bills of exchange, 
but the company is authorized to issue them, which I have as- 
serted again and again it can not do. I have said here before, and 
I repeat it, that it is a common-law right for any association or 
individual to issue a bill of exchange, audit was settled years and 
years ago that it did not require any authority for that. The law 
merchant gave that right, and that ha.s entered into and become 
a part of the common law of England. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator from Colorado will allow me 
to proceed in order, I will try to answer the suggestion he has 
made, for I have the most profound respect for the Senator s legal 
opinion. 

Mr. TELLER. I do not want to interrupt the Senator so as to 
interfere with him, because really I .should like to support this 
bill, if I could see my way clear to do so. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not waut the Senator to support it unless 
he can see his way clear to do so. I do not think there will be 
any real diiTerence between us when we fairly understand what 
the propositions are. 

The first proposition which I wanted to cite an authority to was 
that bills of exchange are instruments of commerce. The second 
proposition that I wanted to cite an authority to was that this 
power to regulate commerce extends not only to the regulation of 
bargaining and selling, but also to the regulation of all the instru- 
ments of commerce, and therefore to the regulations of bills of 
exchange. I claim, Mr. President, that it is a regulation of com- 
merce within these authorities for Congress, with respect to an 
instrumentality of commerce, so to legislate as to facilitate the 
use of that instrumentality or the providing of that instrumen- 
tality to those who may have necessity to use it. 

What was the case in loj L'nited States Reports, which was 
commented on to some extent here a day or two ago? That was 
a case where the State of Kansas had incorporated a railroad. 
That railroad wanted to extend southwardly through the Indian 
Territory and beyond. The Congress by an act conferred the 
power of eminent domain upon that State railroad company, au- 
thorizing it to condemn a right of way and acquire it in that 
manner through the Indian Territory. It did not say anything 
about regulatmg commerce. It was simply a conferring of the 
power of eminent domain upon a State railway company to be 
exercised in the Indian Territory. 

Litigation arose when it undertook to exercise that power; and 
•when it did. the qiiestion was raised whether or not it was com- 
petent for Congi-ess to pass such an act as that. It was contended 
that there was nothing in the act that made it purpoi^t to be an 
act for the regulation of commerce. There was nothing said about 
commerce. It was the mere conferring upon a railroad of the 
right to condemn and take property for a right of way. There 
was not anything said about how freight or passengers should be 
transported: but the Supremo Court said, in answer to that, it 
does not make any difference if nothing is said in the act; it is for 
the court to judge whether or not the power which Congress has 

3519 



I 



41 

Tindertaken to exercise has any relation to any of the constitu- 
tional powers with which Congress is invested. 

The court said this is an act passed by Congress under its au- 
thority to regulate commerce. Why? Not because it provided 
how that railroad should be used. Not alone because it was a 
railroad and, as siich, an instrumentality to be used in commerce. 
As a railroad, pure and simple, it was not commerce. The man 
building a railroad is not engaged in commerce any more than 
the man who is building a ship, any more than the man who is 
issuing a bill of lading. The mere creation of a railroad is not 
commerce. But, said the Supreme Court, this is an instrumen- 
tality of commerce, and whenever the Congress facilitates the 
creation of this instrumentality, the Congress is engaged in regu- 
lating commerce. That is all there is of it. The mere making it 
possible for the road to acquire its right of way was to facilitate 
commerce, and, the road being interstate, that was enough. 

Mr. TELLER. I do not like to interrupt the Senator, but I 
think he has rather lost the force of what I was trying to make 
him understand. I mean to say that the power to issue a bill of 
exchange would exist in this corporation absolutely if nothing 
was said about it. Therefore the mere assertion that the pro- 
posed bank may do what it can do without any grant from the 
Government of the United States can not bring it ^vithin the 
jxirisdiction of Congress. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have not lost the force of what the Senator 
said, but I am coming to that particular phase of it. Just now I 
want to impress upon the Senator from Colorado — for I want him 
to support this bill ; I have the profoundest respect for his legal 
opinion, and I do not see how it is possible for us to differ in re- 
gard to it — what I want to impress upon him again is that while 
the mere issuing of a bill of exchange is not commerce, while the 
mere building of a ship is not commerce, while the mere building 
of a railroad is not commerce, yet when the Congress iindertakes 
to facilitate the use of the ship or the bill of exchange or the rail- 
road in connection with commerce, it is then regulating commerce. 

Mr. TELLER. But the citizens who own a railroad in Kansas 
had no right by the common law or any other law to build a rail- 
road in the In<"lian Territory, and they had to have the assistance 
of the United States in that particular. The Government then 
had exercised that right— a right which I never doubted they 
could exercise. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, the right to build a railroad 
was not a regulation of commerce, but tlie grant of the power to 
acquire the right of way was a regulation of commerce because 
that was the facilitating of commerce, because it promoted an 
agency for the transaction of commercial business. That was 
enough. 

Mr. President, you can not carry on commerce with the South 
American States, the West Indies, and Mexico without having the 
necessary incidents of commerce. You may get along, possibly, 
without having all of them. You can barter and sell, you can 
exchange productsdirectly, but I mean you can not conduct com- 
mercial relations and enjoy modern conveniences in connection 
therewith unless you employ commercial instrumentalities such 
as bills of exchange. 

Bills of exchange are brought into use to facilitate commerce. 
That is their only use. They are a recognized necessity of com- 
merce. While tiie mere issuing by a bank of a bill of exchange 
3519 



7 



42 

is not commerce, and the mere issuing of it not a regulation of 
commerce, yet when the Congress steps in and says, '"Plere is a 
necessity for bills of exchange in order that we may advanta- 
geously conduct our commercial relations/' and tlierefore pro- 
vides that there shall be banks established as branch banks of a 
parent bank established in this country, a branch located in the 
West Indies, one in Mexico, a number "scattered throughout the 
South American states, and then recjuires that each and every 
one of those banks shall at all times provide bills of excliange so 
that people having commercial relations with the United States 
can be provided with them, making that an absolute requirement, 
I say that is a regulation of commerce. 

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Teli.er] says the fault in my 
argument is that banks have a right to issue' bills of exchange 
without that provision in this proposed law. That is true. Every 
bank has a right to issue a bill of exchange, and a bank has a right 
to refuse to issue it. too, if it wants to do so. But the point of 
this whole matter is tliat we not only incorporate the bank and 
tix its office here and its offices throughout this country, but we fix 
its offices in the countries with which we want to trade, and we 
require that those offices shall be maintained there and these bills 
be issued. Why V In order that we may facilitate the transaction 
of our commercial business with those countries where we aro 
now trading and relieve ourselves of the necessity which we have 
been under for years past, to our very great disadvantage, of oper- 
ating through the banking houses of London and the banking 
houses of other countries of Europe. 

It is said there is no necessity for this measure. There does not 
have to be a necessity for it. You might very well have said in 
the Supreme Court case in regard to the Kansas railroad that 
there was not any necessity for that railroad to go through the 
Indian Territory. Certainly there was not, biit it was a con- 
venience to have it go there: it facilitated commercial transac- 
tions to have it go there; and the Supreme Court held that that 
was a regulation of commerce, not because it was providing 
something that there was a necessity for, but because it was pro- 
viding something that facilitated commercial transactions. 

There is not any necessity for us to establish banks in South 
America, the West Indies, and Mexico, or these particular branch 
banks throughout this country. There is no necessity in the sense 
that that kind of business can not be transacted if we do not do 
this thing. But, Mr. President, the validity of this provision is 
not measured by necessit3% While there is no necessity, it is 
thought to be a great convenience to the people who will patron- 
ize these banks to have the banks established and to have these 
facilities created. That, as I under.stand the authorities, is suffi- 
cient to make valid and constitutional the provision which we are 
asking the Congress to enact. 

Now. to what extent is it desirable? It has been said here that 
you can get all the exchange you want from the private banks 
and get it as conveniently, and I think it has been stated with as 
little cost, as you can get it from the bank, after we shall have 
established it, which we are proposing to establish. Such is not in 
accordance with the information that was given to the Foreign 
Relations Committee. We were made to understand, and I be- 
lieve it to be the fact, that when the merchants of the United 
States trade with the Central and South American states and with 
the West Indies we trade at the great disadvantage of having to 
351'J 



43 

pay clouble exchange rates as compared \vith the exchange that 
we would have to pay if we had this bank established and the 
pnncipal bank and tlie branch banks were reqnired to deal directly 
Avith each other in the matter of giving bills of exchange, as this 
Dill does provide, 

Mr. BACOX. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to ask 
him in what particular this proposed bank will have any facilities 
tor exchange with foreign countries not now enioved by any na- 
tional bank or State bank in the city of New Y6rk if it has the 
capital with which to do the business? 

Mr. FORAKER. I am very anxious! v looking for the appear- 
ance of my messenger. I sent him a few minutes ago to mv resi- 
dence to get a letter which came to me through the mail this 
morning, in which the Senator is answered far better than I can 
answer him. I looked in my pocket for the letter, intending to 
have It read; but Imding that I had loft it I sent for it. It wifl lie 
here in a few moments, and then I will have it read. I shall bo 
pleased to pass that by, if it will suit the Senator as well, until 
the letter comes. 

Mr. BACON. Certainly. 

Mr. FORAKER. It is a letter in which a merchant of New 
iork gives an accoint, simply for purposes of illustration, of a 
transaction had by his house with some point in Brazil, showin"- 
the extreme disadvantages to which they are subjected in their 
trade with those countries. 

-^i^:P^^^^-^-^\ ^ Conceding it to be true that there was an instance, 
and that possibly there are daily instances, in which there was 
this mconvenionce, I am sure, however, in the absence of the let- 
ter, which simply narrates this particular instance, the Senator 
can tell us how this particular proposed bank can have the oppor- 
tunity for exchange which is denied to a bank in the city of New 
i ork at this tune. In other words, what power is now lackin'^ to 
a bank m the city of New York to establish agencies in any ono 
ot those couircnes the authority to establish which is proposed to 
be given by this bill? ^ 

Mr FORAKER. To begin with, I deny the proposition of the 
benator from Georgia that any bank incorporated in this country 
under a State charter has authority to go into foreign countries 
and there set up banking. To do that would be as clear a case of 
exceeding corporate authority, it .seems to me. as could be smr- 
gested, iinless the constitutions of other States are different from 
the constitution of Ohio. 

?F" ?^^l^h^^ ^^^-^' ^ ^^^ ^^y ^^"ie^f^ a question? 
vffi '•/ H, ^^^?^• ^°y' to answer the Senator from C^eorgia a 
ittle further If you wi 1 allow me, the bill provides that the.se 
b^mches shall draw bills of exchange directly on the principal 
office and the principal office on the branches, respectively. There 
shall be but one transaction and but one charge. When a mer- 
chant ships goods he can step into the bank here and by deposit- 
ing his bill o± lading and drawing a bill of exchange against it set 
his money on the spot, ^ 

But now I am very happy to be able to inform the Senator from 
Cxeorgia that tlie letter I spoke of a moment ago has just arrived, 
and I send it to the desk and ask that it may be read. I invoke 
the attention of Senators to it; for if you will allow me, before 
the Secretary commences the reading, you will find that this is an 
enterprise not tor the benefit of the people who are the incorpo- 
rators of this bank alone. Of course they will have some benefit 

£519 



^/ 



44 

or they would not engage in it. I do not know the measure of 
their benefit. But that is not the concern of the Senators who 
reported the bill from the committee. On the contrary, it is an 
enterprise for the benefit of all the people of the United States, 
and our only concern has been to remove such disadvantages as 
the letter speaks of. Now, if the Secretary will be kind enough to 
read it. I will suspend a moment for that i^urpose. 

Tiie PRESIDING OFFICER. The letter will be read. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

Neav York, June i:<, 1S9S. 
Dear Sir: Accoi-clinpc to pvoss reports of proceedings in Senate on .Tune 
14 on international l)ank. Senator Telliir claims tliat any of the large banks 
in New York by virtne of ageneie:^ they have in all parts of South America 
can offer the same facilities to exporters in the United States of America 
as would the International bank or as do the lar^e English banks in Europe. 
This is a great mistake, as you will see. We inclose letter of Bank of New 
York of February H, 1^1)8, offering to attend to collections of drafts in South 
America for us. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Secretary will suspend for a moment, 
in order that Senators may fully understand what is meant by the 
circular letter of the bank, 1 send it to the desk and ask that the Sec- 
retary read the letter referred to. which is a solicitation on tlie part 
of the bank of .their patronage in the matter of "foreign exchange. 

The Secretary read as follows: 

The Bank of New York, Keir York, Fehyuayy 0, ISOS. 

Dear Sirs: We bogto infoi-m yon that we attend to collection of drafts oa 
Sonth America, and respectfully solicit a share of your patronage. 
Yours, very truly, 

Tjie Bank of New York, N. B. A., 
Per C. S. MacALPINE, Attorney. 
Messrs. Kurz.max Brothers, 

Ko. OS Pearl i^treei, City. 

Mr. FORAKER. Now let the Secretary resume the reading of 
the letter from Kurzman Brothers. 

The Secretarj' resumed and concluded the reading of the letter, 
as follows: 

We availed ourselves of this offer and were compelled to draw in pounds 
sterling against our shijiments of butter, which drafts were sent by the Bank 
of New York, through the British Bank of South America, to the Banco do 
Pernambuco, which alone charged three-fourths of 1 per cent collecting com- 
mission, and then remit a draft on London in pounds sterling, which draft, 
after long delay, was sent to us, and even the Bank of New York refused to 
buy the returned Bank of Pernambuco draft on the London and County Bank ! 

We inclose memoranda of George O. Gordon, agent of London and River 
Plate Bank, by which you will see that on a $;i,S(J(t.4y draft on Bahia we had to 
draw in pounds sterling and pay heavy collecting commissions, and finally re- 
ceived remittance via London, netting us a loss in exchange and banking 
commission of $48.77. or over 1} per cent, and not counting loss of interest due 
to the remittance going via London. 

It is all very well for Senator Teller and others in Washington to say that 
the New York banks offer facilities on the strength of such letters as the 
Bank of New York sent us, which caused us the loss of the use of our money 
at least thirty days longer than if the United States of America had direct 
banking facilities with South America. Furthermore, the heavy collection 
charges are too great, and the lo.ss in being forced to draw in pounds sterling 
and then on receipt of remittance to again sell the pounds sterling so as to ob- 
tain United States dollars, is also a great drawback. 

The above shows you at what a gi-eat disadvantage exporters in United 
States of America are as compared to European houses. 

Now let us point out to you an even greater drawback. 

In order to facilitate our export trade of butter in South America (in try- 
ing to supplant the Frenchand Danish butter), we asked our South American 
friends to open for us bank credits, so that on delivering shipping documents 
to the New York agents or New York banks we could obtain our money on 
the spot, and not be forced to send drafts for collection, which compels us to 
be out of our funds for three to .six months, as in the collections made by 
Bank of New York and Loudon and River Plate Bank. 
3519 



45 

Not a single bank doing business in Brazil would grant a letter of credit on 
the terms that such credits are opened for European trade, even to houses 
that have the highest rating in Brazil. 

First. The banks demand a 1 per cent commission on the amount of tha 
credit, whether used or not. 

Second. The banks demand security for 25 to ,50 per cent of the credit tha 
moment it is granted, whether it will be used or not. 

Third. If the drafts against the letter of credit are drawn as shipping doc- 
uments at ninety days' sight, the moment the 2oods arrive in Brazil the banks 
there demand payment tor the drafts before they deliver the documents 
(goods), notwithstanding that the credit and draft entitles the receivers to 
ninety days' time. 

Such documents the banks doing business in Brazil call credit*, and we 
hope vou, Mr. Fohaker, will not allow yourself to be deceived by statements 
that United States exporters have ample facilities for doing bu.siuess in 
South America. 

Such banks as the London and River Plate Bank and London and Bra- 
zilian Bank have in the past tv,'euty-five years paid dividends of 10 to 15 per 
cent, besides accumulating a siirplus of 75 per center more, and most of it at 
the expense of United States merchants. 

We are not interested in the proposed international bank, and we write our 
experiences to you in the hopes that you will be able to enlighten Senators 
and Representatives in Washington. 

What v.-e ( United States of America) need is an international bank, L'''nited 
States steamship lines, and reciprocity. 

Is there any prospect of reciprocity with Latin America, from whom wa 
buv three to tour times as much as we (United States) sell to it? 

Thanking you for the interest you di.siilay in trying to increase the foreign 
commerce of our country, which moans increased prosperity to the United 
States, we are. 

Yours, respectfully, 

KURZMAN BROS. 

Hon. J. B. FORAKER, 

U. S. Senator {Oitio), Washington, D. C. 

Mr. FORAKER. I had the letter read only that we might have 
the benefit of that part of it which portrayed the disadvantages 
our merchants now contend with in carrying on their transac- 
tions with tliese foreign countries and that I might give to the 
Senate the benefit of that merchant's opinion as to how it would 
be corrected bj'the institution of such a bank as is here proposed. 
As I understand him, his contention is that now it is not only dif- 
ficult to have his bills of exchange cashed, being compelled to 
wait from thirty days to sis months, as he states, but he is com- 
pelled under present arrangements to submit to double charges 
of rates of exchange, three-quarters of a per cent here and some- 
thing else yonder, making in the aggregate a cent and a half, 
which is so biu'densome as to make it practically impossible to 
carry on the business satisfactorily in competition with other 
countries where they have these facilities provided. 

Mr. BACON. If the Senator from Ohio will permit me, the 
point I make I do not think is answered by that letter. It is that 
whatever may be the jiresent difficulties, and nobody 'disputes 
their existence, there is no possible power that we can confer upon 
these banks which can not be equally exercised by a State bank 
so far as foreign exchange is concerned, and so far as furnishing 
all facilities for foreign exchanges is concerned. There are but 
two things necessary. One is the corporate power, and the other 
is the requisite amount of money. The requisite amount of money 
can be secured in the one case as well as in the other. I repeat 
what has been said before, and which nobody has ever successfully 
answered and which can not be successfully answered, that there 
is no corporate power, so far as foreign exchange goes, at least, 
which we can confer upon this bank which the State of New York 
can not confer upon a bank chartered by it. 

Now, if the Senator will pardon me just a minute, and I do not 
desire to interrupt him farther or to be heard further on this bill, 

3519 



4(3 

I Avant to call attention to one Httle striking coincidence, or rather 
remarkable fact, it may be called. The Senate will remember that 
on yesterday 1 read a very remarkable charter embodied in a bill 
which had been introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania 
[Mr, Quay]. The Senator from Pennsylvania in the course of 
the disciission read a telegram from Theodore C. Search. Now. 
thflt was for the most unlimited charter that was ever heard of 
in any legislative body. I notice that Theodore C. Search is one 
of the incori)orators in this bill. 

Mr. QUAY. Mr. Search is the president of the National Asso- 
ciation of Manufacturers. He is the head of the association, and 
it would be supposed that he would be one of the incorporators. 

Mr. BACON. Yes; and I notice that he is one of the incorpo- 
rators named in this bill. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have no apologies to offer for the presence 
in the bill of the name of Mr. Search. 

Mr. BACON. Not at all. 

Mr. FORAKER. Y''ou will find Mr. Search's name written all 
over this country in connection with its business interests. He ia 
a live, wide-awake, progressive man. at the head of the Manufac- 
turers' Association, and"a man who has been engaged for years in 
trying to build up and develop our trade with South American 
countries. He is just the kind of a man who would seek out and 
find out a way whereby to facilitate our trade with those coun- 
tries, to the end that we might be on an equal footing with other 
countries. He is .just the kind of a man who would find oiit what 
the advantages are of an international bank, and he is a man en- 
joying the confidence of his fellow-men to such an extent that he 
can associate them with him in business. There is no question 
about what his purpose is. It has been pronounced in many 
ways. 

Mr. BACON. If the Senator will permit me. I am not speak- 
ing in any disparagement of Mr. Searc-h. but I am simply calling 
attention to the fact of the kindred character of these two bills, 
in which it is sought to confer upon incorporators powers gigantic, 
colossal, dangerous to the public interests and even to the public 
libertv. 

Mr.^FORAKER. I want to add only one other thing about Mr. 
Search, and that is that I do noc know him personally. I never 
saw him in my life. I have no relations with him; biit I know of 
him as everybody else knows of him who pays any attention to what 
is going on in the business world in this country as an active, 
X^rogressive man. 

As to the bill the Senator from Pennsylvania had in charge yes- 
terday, or that was referred to yesterday as his measure rather, 
we will discuss that when we come to it. I was not aware when 
it was referred to that any such bill was pending here. But I do 
not .see any objection to that bill in the sense that the Senator from 
Georgia objected to it. There may be a question as to the consti- 
tutionality of that proposed measure. I do not want to commit 
myself about that until I have tune to examine it j^ irther. But 
so far as there being any danger to this country from having that 
done wliich the incorporators imder that bill are proposing to do, 
1 do not see it at all. I think it is all Intended to advance and 
promote the interests of the country. And so it is about this 
bank. I do not find here in this bill any dangerous powers. 

Mr. BACON. Will the Senator permit me to ask him a question? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. BACON. I understand the Senator to say that he does not 
3519 



47 

see anything dangerous in that bill. Of course it is not now under 
discussion, but the Senator has taken occasion to say that he sees 
nothing in the bill to which allusion has been made that would be 
dangerous to the interests of this country. Now, the ffaestion I 
wanted to ask the Senator is this 

Mr. FORAKER. I should have stated, I intended to state, and 
if I did not I will now state, that as interj^reted by the letter or 
telegram from Mr. Search which was read yesterday by the Sena- 
tor from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator from Ohio will understand, of 
course, that the charter is not to be construed by the letter of Mr. 
Search, but it is to be construed by the language used in the 
charter. That is a proposed charter which, without any limita- 
tion as to amount, gives to that company the right to buy and 
hold in unlimited amount all kinds of property, real and personal, 
which would include all property in the whole United States. 
The question I want to ask the Senator is if he considers that that 
sort of a charter is a proper one to grant? 

Mr. FORAKER. As I have already indicated to the Senator 
from Georgia, I prefer to discuss that bill when it comes up for 
consideration. I have not read the bill. I did not know such a 
bill was here until yesterday. I did read or heard read the tele- 
gram, however, from Mr. Search, saying what it was that the 
company desired to do if they coixld get a charter, and I did not 
see anything that was dangerous to the liberties or the business 
interests of this country or the rights of individuals in anything 
that he proposed. 

And so it is with respect to the powers of this bank. Senators 
are speaking about the great and the extraordinary powers con- 
ferred upon this bank. There are no great or extraordinary 
powers, as I understand the bill, conferred upon the bank. The 
powers are only those powers which are necessary to the conduct 
of the business which the bank is incorporated for the purpose of 
doing. The powers that are given to the bank are not given to 
the bank with a view to the profits of the men who may be asso- 
ciated with the bank, but with a view to making it possible for 
the bank to successfully accomplish the purposes it is intended to 
subserve, and we want those purposes subserved not for the 
benefit of any particular individual" but for the benefit of all the 
people of the country who are interested in international com- 
merce of the character that the bank is intended to deal with. 

As I was about saying when the Senator from Georgia inter- 
rupted me, and that is all I have to say about this matter at this 
time, bills of exchange are instruments of commerce. The Su- 
preme Court has so held, and Senators now, whatever may have 
been their differences of opinion, agree to that. The Siipreme 
Court has also said that it is a regulation of commerce to legislate 
with i-espect to an instrument of commerce so as to facilitate the 
use of it. 

What I claim is that the bill does provide that bills of exchange, 
instruments of commerce, shall be provided under such circum- 
stances and in such a way to the people who have need of them in 
this trade as to facilitate their employment. The facility which 
is thus afforded over that which they now have in the use of bills 
of exchange is necessarily calculated to promote our international 
commerce with those countries; and that being the case, it is 
clearly a regulation of commerce under the decisions to which I 
have been referring. 

3519 



^ 



^vT 



ANNEXATION OF HAWAII. 



REMARKS 



o? 



HON.I.B.FORAKER, 



OF OHIO, 



IN THE 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 



JUNE: 25, 1898. 



WASHIjMOTON. 

1898. 



'y^G 



E E M A R K S 



OF 



HON. J. B. FOllAKEll. 



The Senate havinc; under consideration the joint resolution (H. Res. 250) 
providing for the annexation of Hawaii, and Senator TuuLiiV having tiie 
floor- 
Mr. TURLE Y. The next point which is made was made by the 
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Foraker], and I believe by the Senator 
from Massachiisetts, but I will quote from the Senator from Ohio. 
He first said: 

lam loath to interrupt the Senator, hut I have been desiring for some 
minutes since he got on this proposition to put a question to him. 1 he qiios- 
tion 1 desire to put is this: Would it not be competent for the Congress ot the 
United States to prescribo by law certain terms and conditions upon which 
any independent government might come in and become a part of the terri- 
tory of tto United States by complying with the terms and conditions pre- 
scribed by the Congress of the United States? _ , , , 
Suppose, for instance, to make plain what I have in my mmd, we should 
provide that any independent people or government, doing what this pre- 
amble recites the people of Hawaii have done, should, upon complying with 
certain conditions, those and others that we might see fit to make, become a 
part of our territory, they notifying us that they had complied with all the 
terms and conditions, could wo not thereupon declare them to be annexed 
and make them a part of the territory of the United States, and woiild not 
that be a more competent power for the Congress than it wovild be tor the 
treaty-making power? 

Now, Mr. President. I submit this idea in reply to that propo- 
sition: Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution which 
squints at any power to pass any such law. The only line on this 
subject in the Constitution, outside of that lodging the treaty- 
making power in the Senate and the President, is the provision 
about the admission of new States. This proposition involves the 
idea of a general law, directed to every independent country in 

the world. ^^ re 

If it is good for one. if it is good for two, it is good tor all. it 
the proposition is true' to-morrow Congress could pass a law pro- 
viding that every independent power in the world, any or all ot 
them, could become a part of the United States upon complying 
with certain conditions; that the most ignorant population could 
come in on the same terms with the most educated and intelli- 
gent; that the Malays in the Philippine Islands, or these Kanakas 
in Hawaii, or the negroes in Africa, any government that was an 
independent power, could come in on these terms and conditions. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President , . . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faulkner in the chair). 
Does the Senator from Tennessee yield to the Senator from Ohio? 

Mr. TURLE Y. Certainly. 
3513 3 



Mr. FOR AKER. Will tlio Senator from Tennessee allow me to 
eugi^est that the point he is now making will not go to the ques- 
tion of power, but only to the question of policy, about which I 
was not talking when I made the remarks from whii-h he is quot- 
ing. It might be good policy or bad policy in any given case. 

Mr. TL'KLEY. Now, in reply to the Senator from Ohio, I ;mb- 
mit that when you are unable to find in the Constitution of the 
United States an express grant of power to do what you are seek- 
ing to accomplish, or. in other words, if a proposition' is submitted 
as constitutional and it cannot be found expressly witliin tlie 
Constitution, or it does not api)ear to be necessary aiid inherently 
proper to carry out some expressly granted power, then it is a legit- 
imate argument to see where it leads in order to determine whether 
the framers of the Constitution have intended to vest it where it 
is claimed it has lieen vested. In other words, I submit that in all 
doubtful «iuestions 

^Ir. FoKAKER. Will the Senator from Tennessee excuse me 
fur intcrrujiting him again? 

Mr. TURLEY. Certainly. 

Mr. FORAKER. I did not m. an to express, and I hojie the 
Senator did not understand me l»y anything I said when making 
tlie remarks whidi he has quoted to" express, an oi)inion as to 
whetlier tluit would bo good policy or bad policv. 1 was simply 
speaking of the question of power and giving that as an illustra- 
tion of what I thought might possibly be done, and constitution- 
ally. It does not follow that because I think that could be consti- 
tutionally done I would advocate it as a good measure. 

Mr, TITRLEY. C-ertainly I did not understand the Senator 
from Ohio as saying that any such proposition would be good 
policy, but 1 understand him to say to me now that the position 
I am arguing is one of policy, and that what I say throws no light 
on the question of power. I do not think I mistake him on the 
point that my argument is applicable to the question of the policy 
of the idea and not to the question whether the power really exists. 

Now, what I am attempting to reply is, if you are seeking in the 
Constitution some power which is not expressly granted or which 
is not clearly granted, in other words, if as a court or as Senators 
here determining upon the constitutionality of the question there 
may be doubt as to whether power exists under the Constitution 
to do certain things, it is a legitimate argument to see where that 
power would lead us to if it exists. In other words, we may 
argue against the existence of the power from the fact that great 
danger and peril would come to the country if such power really 
exists, I mean in all doubtful cases. 

Of course, if it is an expressly granted power there can be no 
question of it: but wherever it is a question of doubt as to whether 
the power exists, if we see that the existence of tlie power would 
be dangerous, that its exercise would threaten the destruction of 
the country, we may then look to that as a reason for saying the 
framers of the Constitution never intended to vest in any branch 
of tlie Government the right to exercise such power. 

So I say now that if the question had been asked in the conven- 
tion which framed the Constitution, '• Have we invested Congress 
or do we intend to invest Congress with power to i»ass a law un- 
der which every independent nation existing on the globe can 
come into this compact and into this Government and become in- 
herent parts of it?"' the reply would have been in the negative, 
that it never entered the minds of the framers of the Constitution 
a5i3 



that they were investing Congress or any department of the 

Government Avith the power by any such law as is referretl to in 

this proposition to admit into this Union or into this Government 

as component parts of it any existing power in the world. 

Now, I go a step further to the next proposition. The Senator 

from Ohio very frankly admits that if a foreign power were by 

agreement to cede us a part of its territory upon certain terms 

and conditions agreed upon, it would necessarily have to be done 

by treaty. I will read the whole quotation: 

Mr. FoHAKEn. If the Senator will allow me .iustone word further, I agree 
with almost all ho has said; but at the point where 1 differ from him the dif- 
fereufo becomes vital. I think that when you make acompact with a foreign 
power it must be in the nature of a treaty, but that contemplates the con- 
tinued existence of the foreign power. Therefore, if a foreign power wore 
by acrreement to code to us a iiart of its territory upon certain terms and 
conditions agrefcd u])on, it would necessai-ily have to be done by treaty. 

And further on he says: 
In a word- 
In order to understand this proposition, I will read a little from 
what the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Bacon] said: 

Mr. President, I am utterly unable to see the force of that argument. It 
is in either case an agi-eement by which sovereignty existing over certain 
territory is abandoned, or rather annulled, and by which the sovereignty of 
this country is given to it. Why should the change of sovereignty as to a 
part bo the subject-matter of negotiation and the change of sovereignty as to 
the whole bo not the subject-matter of negotiation? 

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Foraker] rei)lied: 

In a word I can answer that. Because there is no continuance of a com- 
pact. The whole thing is at an end by its consummation. 

Now, the idea seems to be this, if I understand it, and it is very 
plainly and clearly expressed, that even though the riglit to be 
gained has its inception in a compact or agreement, still if it 
isnotacontinuingcompact,if, in the languageof the Senator, there 
is no continuance of a compact, then it cea.?es practically to be the 
subject-matter of treaty; in other words, that only those things 
have necessarily to be done by treaty which are done between two 
nations which continue in existence, and where there is a conti- 
nuity of the contract or a continuance of the contract. 

I produced authorities yesterday and discussed the proposition 
that a treaty is simply a contract between two sovereign powers; 
that nations deal with each other by treaty like individuals do by 
contract. It is no objection to tiie validity of a contract as a con- 
tract, it does not deprive it of its character as a contract, that it 
is consummated in its execution: that there is no continuity in it; 
that it ends when it is made; that it is one act and there is nothing 
further to be done. 

Every deed, every grant where the money is paid, is a contract 
of that sort. There is no continuity in it. There is no continu- 
ance: nothing fitrther to be done. It is ended completely, just as 
the treaty by which Russia conveyed to us Alaska. When the 
money was paid, it was an ended contract, as every executed con- 
tract is. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President 

The PRE.SIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennes- 
see vield to the Senator from Ohio? 

Mr. TURLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will not be interrupted I 
should like to ask a question. 
C513 



6 

I listened with a great deal of interest to his discussion of the 
term "treaty" and his definition of what is meant by the word 
"treaty." 1 understood him to define it yesterday, as he has re- 
peated to-day, that a treaty is simply a contract between sover- 
eign powers. lie also insisted, as other Senators have done, that 
the treaty is not a treaty until it is consummated. 

Of course everybody agrees witli him as to that. The treaty 
that was negotiated between this Government and the Hawaiian 
Republic, therefore, has never become a treaty. It has been sim- 
ply negotiated. It will be a treaty if it shall be ratified, and not 
otherwise. Until the moment of its ratification there is no con- 
tract between Hawaii and the United St^ites. 

I\Ir. WHITE. Mr. President 

Mr. SPOONER. What of the coosion which you say you ac- 
cept? » '' 

iMr. \\'H1TE. That is exactly what I was about to ask. 
]Mr. FORAKER. Tlie one referred to in the joint resolution? 
I will come to that in a moment. A great deal has betu said, if 

the .Senator Irom Tennessee will not object 

Mr. TURLEY. 1 do not object. 

Mr. FORAKER. I will take occasion now, as other Senators 
have interrogated me, to make answer to that. 

Mr. TURLEV. I do not object. 

Mr. FORAKER. A great deal has been said about the word 
" cession " being used here. 

I^Ir. WHITE. It is in the preamble. 

Mr. FORAKER. It might bo that in framing this, if I had 
framed it, I would not have used that word, Imt I see no objection 
to the use of it. used as it has been used. The "said cession,'" tiio 
resolution reads, is accepted. What cession? That which is re- 
ferred to in the preamble which immediately precedes, and in tho 
preamble the facts are correctly recited, for the preamble recites 
that a treaty has been negotiated; in other words, that, in accord- 
ance with the provision of tho constitution of the Hawaiian Re- 
public, tho Hawaiian Goveniment has negotiated and done all it 
can do and all that it is necessary for it to do to manifest its will- 
ingness to make an agreement on its part to cede the territory be- 
longing to the Republic of Hawaii. Then follows the resolution, 
and reterring to that preamble and to that transaction, it uses 
the expression, "said cession." Nobody can misunderstand that 
language as it is thus emploved. 

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from Kentucky? 

.Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. LINDSAY. If it will not disturb the Senator, I should like 
to present this idea to him. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am answering a question and I hope not to 
get too far away from it. 

Mr. LINDSAY. This will be pertinent, I think, to the question. 

Mr. rORAKER. Very well. 

Mr. LIND.SAY. The cession named in the act is the cession 
provided for m the treaty, as I understand it. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LINDSAY. Article 7 of the treaty provides: 

This treaty shall be ratified l)y the President of tho United States, hy and 
With the advice and consent of the Senate, on the one part 
3513 



I wis}! to ask the Senator whether a joint resolution, concurred 
in by the two Houses but passed through the Senate by less than 
a two-thirds majority, can be treated as equivalent to the ratifica- 
tion of a treaty by the President of the United States, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate? 

Mr. FORAKER. It is not precisely the same thing, but the 
legal effect of the whole transaction is necessarily the same, ac- 
cording to the view I entertain of the power of Congress with 
respect to that particular matter, because the result is an absolute 
cession of the territory belonging to the Republic of Hawaii and 
an absolute acceptance of it on the iiart of the United States. 
Now, I shall show why that is so. 

JMr. LINDSAY. One other question, and then I will not inter- 
rupt the Senator further. 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly; with pleasure. 

Mr. LINDSAY. After this joint resolution shall have leon 
adopted and approved by the President and presented to the 
Hawaiian authorities, I ask the Senator if they will not have a per- 
fect right to refuse to accept the benefit of the joint resolution 
tipon the ground that a treaty has not been ratified by the Presi- 
dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the 
United States? 

Mr. FORAKER. Undoubtedly they would have a right to ig- 
nore all the action that they took previously having reference to 
the negotiation and ratification of the treaty. They could treat 
this whole question de novo and take action with respect to this. 
I do not know that anybody ever contended for the contrary. 

What I am commenting upon is that which the Senator from 
California called my attention to. The employment of the word 
' ' cession " here is not ambiguous and it is not an Inappropriate word 
to employ, because it has reference to something that immediately 
precedes, which is clearly defined, and which is in strict accord- 
ance with the facts. 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from California? 

iMr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. WHITE. Wo all know the Senator from Ohio is distin- 
guished in law as he is in other avocations. I wish to ask him 
whether ho does not think a cession means a grant, and whether 
a grant does not j^resiippose not merely the execution of an ade- 
quate instrument, but its acceptance by the grantee, and if that 
must not be so in the case of a cession? 

Mr. FORAKER. Undoubtedly. I stated when I first touched 
upon this matter that if I had been drafting this resolution I 
might have employed a different word. But what the word ordi- 
narily means is not necessarily what we are to be governed by 
here. We must look at the whole instrument and see what it is 
that the word is intended to mean. When you look at the whole 
instrument the word "cession," as there employed, has reference 
to the preamble, and whether it be a correct description of that 
which the Hawaiian Republic has done or not, it can not mislead 
anybody, because, interpreted in the light of the context, it simply 
means to refer to the fact that the people of Hawaii have done all 
in their power necessary for them to clo to manifest to the people 
of the United States a willingness on their part to cede all their, 
territory to the United States upon the terms and conditions here 
impo.sed. 
3513 



8 

Now. that is all that word means: all it can be made by anybody 
to mean ; all that it can be claimed that it means. Of course it 
is true that the ordinary interpretation of the word "cession" 
would imply a consummated transaction— a deed, a bar*?ain, sale, 
conveyance ; but we have to interpret this word according to its 
context. 

Now, comiiif,' back to the point where I was when I was inter- 
rupted and addressing myself to the point I wanted to make to 
the Senator from Tennessee, if I recollect correctly I had gotten 
far enough along to call attention to the fact thai he had been 
arguing there could not bo any treaty or any contract until the 
consummation of it. His contention was that a treaty was simply 
a contract and that there was not a contract until the treaty was 
ratified. That contention is correct. A treaty can not be anything 
but a contrait, and there can not be a contract until we approve. 
But, Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee will not dili'er 
from me when I say there can be no contract unless there be at 
least two parties to it. 

The very minute that there ceases to be two parties to it there 
is no longer a contract; it is something else; there is no mutuality. 
The Senator and all the other Senators on his side of the (luestion 
have argued that there is nothing here, no cession, nocontract. on 
treaty, until this transaction is consummated. Now, I ask Senators 
to state whether or not there is a contract after it has been con- 
summated. I am speaking of the treaty and not of this resolu- 
tion. After this treaty shall have been ratified by the Senate, as 
we were reijuested by the President of the United States to ratify 
it. will there be any continuing contract? 

No. certainly not; for in the consummation of that transaction 
the Republic of Hawaii ceases to be. and it is an absurdity on the 
face of things to say that there can be a continuing contract and 
that it ought to be a treaty for that reason Iwitween the United 
Stales and a power that is no longer in existence. Therefore it is 
that I sav 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President- 



]Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator from California \vill allow me 
just a moment. I say there are cases in which territory mav be 
ceded where it is not at all the proper subject-matttr, according 
to the view I take of it, for a treaty. 

Mr. WHITE. I desire to inquire of my friend from Ohio whether 
the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which he is a member, 
did not report and earnestly advocate, until within a verv short 
period past, the ailoption of such a treaty absurdity as that which 
he describes? 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President. I did not mean to say that this 
particular case was an absurdity. I should have said there might 
be cases where it would Ije an absurdity to contend that a cession 
of territory could Ije acquired only by treaty. But I will .'■ay to 
the Senator from California that I never did have the idea that 
this was a proper subject-matter for treaty, and I will tell you 
why. Let me put a case. When we took the Louisiana purcha.se 
by treaty, we did not take all the territory of France, but only a 
certain designated portion of it— that in this country, and that 
described by the treat}*. 

If we had taken that tenitory without anything more being 

stipulated for than merely the payment of a certain sum of money, 

the whole ti-ansaction Avould have been consummated when the 

treaty was signed and the money was paid, and that would have 

;>oi3 '■ - 



9 

been the end of it. That might have been done, I contend, by an 
offer on the part of France"" to cede to ns that territory and an 
acceptance on the part of the Government of the United States 
and the appropriation of the money by the Congress of the United 
States and the payment of that money. That would have closed 
it all. 

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President 

Mr. FORAKER. But, if you will allow me just a moment, 
there was something else in that treaty. Certain rights were pre- 
served to the peo]ile living in that territory, and we stipulated 
that those rights should be preserved to them. Therefore, there 
was a continuing obligation, and there were two contracting 
parties continuing after the consummation of the transaction, the 
one to enforce the transaction as against the other. That was a 
case of a continuing contract. It was a proper case for a treaty. 
It could not havo'been anything else, having that continuing 
obligation, except only a case of treaty. 

Now, suppose another case. Suppose England were to-day to 
offer to cede to the United States the Bermuda Islands for the pay- 
ment of a stipulated sum of money and that was all there was of 
it. Suppose she were to say to us. in a proper way, "Pay us 
85,000,000 and take those islands."' I think we could take them, 
and take them constitutionally, if we would simply say, "Here is 
your money; we accept your offer."' It would not have to be by 
treaty, although there would be two parties remaining in exist- 
ence "to the transaction to enforce the contract, if there were any 
contract to enforce or anything to be enforcetl. 

But suppose that instead of saying. "Take these islands for so 
much money, cash down," England should .say, " We propose that 
vou shall take them for so much money, but you shall guarantee 
to us the enjoyment of a coaling station, which we reserve, and 
guarantee to us certain other rights in these islands which here- 
tofore we have enjoyed," and suppose we had accepted her offer 
upon those terms; that would of necessity be the subject-matter 
for a treaty, because, after the consummation of the contract 
by the signing of it, there would remain two existing parties to 
it, one to enforce it against the other, and there would remain 
certain rights and conditions upon which they had stipulated. It 
could not be anvthing else than the subject-matter of a treaty. 

But this is a wholly dift'erent case. Here comes the Republic 
of Hawaii and saj's: "We are authorized by the constitution of 
our Government to enter into a treaty for the cession of these 
islands to the United States. We have entered into such a treaty 
upon our part; here it is; we propose it; we offer it to you. Will 
you ratify it?" 

Mr. WHITE. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to ask 
him whether there can be a treaty unless both parties have agreed 
to it, and whether, therefore, the provisions of the Hawaiian con- 
stitution have been to any extent complied with? 

Mr. FORAKER. I will answer the Senator from California at 
as full length as he desires if he will only let me finish the propo- 
sition which I was about to put. 

The Hawaiian Republic comes and says not that " we are willing 
to cede to vou one of our group of islands in order that you may 
make a coaling station there;" not that " we are willing to cede to 
you a part of our territory for some stipulated purpose and upon 
certain stipulated conditions;" but she says, " We come and we 

3513 



10 

give to you all our territory, and upon your acceptance of this 
proposition we cease absolutely and forever to be." 

;Mr. President, there is not any contract, and, theroforo, no 
treaty, until that proposition has been acceptid and ratified by 
a two-thirds vote of the Senate— until that moment there is abso- 
lutely nothing that has any legal elTect or binding force whatso- 
ever upon anybody. 

Is there anything in the nature of a treaty remaining after its 
acceptanc'j? Th'*re are two parties to a contract necessarily. Can 
there be two parties when only one jiarty is still in existence? Tho 
Hawaiian Kepublic, accoiding to this projiosition. ceases to e.xist 
the very moment this transaction is consumuuxted. In the con- 
summation of it one party perishes. 

Therefore, Mr. President, there is not any contract remaining; 
and. according to the definition insisted upon by Senators who are 
arguing here in opposition, there is no treaty, for they tell us with 
grave emphasis that a treaty is a contract. ' That is true; but you 
can not have a contract, and therefore you can not have a treaty, 
unless you have two parties to it. The very moment you destrciy 
one of the parties your treaty is gone, your contract is g(jne. But 
suppose now within a year after this "treaty, if it should bo rati- 
fied and would be consummated — suppose within a year after its 
ratification we should refuse to pay the money or do something 
else that it is stipulated we are to do upon the con.summation of 
that transaction, would there be anybody in existence to comnel 
us to do it? 

Tho Republic of Hawaii would be no longer in existence; tho 
Republic of Hawaii, with all the machinery of goverinnent. per- 
ishes tho very minute this transaction is consummated, and tho 
people of Hawaii become subjects of tho United States; they be- 
come merged with us; they cast in their lot with us; they can not 
call us to account; it is our common obligation, and they treat 
with us, relying that we will act in good faith, and they take the 
risk of that. There would be a treaty, an executed instrument, 
but no longer in existence except only as a consummated trans- 
action, because there would be nobody to enforce the provisions 
of it. 

Therefore it is. Mr. President, that I say with respect to this 
matter of acquiring territory that there are cases where of neces- 
.sity, it seems to me, the acquisition should lie by treaty, and there 
are ca.ses— and this is one of them— where the acfiuisition .'should 
be by a legislative act of Congress. I see no difficulty about the 
acquisition of the temtory of Hawaii in this way for the reasons 
I have undertaken to state. 

I have occupied so much of the time of the Senator from Ten- 
nessee that I owe him an apology. I did not think I would inter- 
rupt him to this extent, and would not have done so had not other 
Senators joined in with interrogatories. 

Ur. TURLEY. I am glad to yield to the Senator. 

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me to ask him whore 
he gets his constitutional power to annex by a joint resolution? 

Mr. FORAKER. I will ask the Senator from Nebraska where 
he gets his constitutional power to annex by treaty? The Consti- 
tution of the United States is silent on that subject. What does 
the Constitution of the United States say about the annexation of 
territory? Not one word. It is one of the implied powers: and 
I contend that it is inherent. But Senators here take exception 
to that, and say this is a Government of limited i)Owers; that tho 
a)i3 



11 

or"-<inic law of this country is the Constitution made by the peo- 
ple thereof; and they say the General Government has no power 
except only that which is delegated. ^, ^ .^ . 

Pass bv, for the sake of argument, the proposition that it is an 
inherent"power of our sovereignty, as it is of sovereignty generally, 
and I answer the Senator that it is included within the implied 
powers The Congress of the United States is especially empow- 
ered to promote the general welfare. If the acquisition of an 
i.<5land in the sea be necessary to the promotion of our general 
welfare, Congress is expressly endowed by the Constitution with 
power to acquire it. , , , .^ ^, t 

It is not necessary that I should speak about the war power. 1 
do not rest mv purpose to vote for this acquisition upon anything 
connected with the war. I was just as unequivocally and un- 
qualifiedly for the ac(iuisition of Hawaii a year ago or ten years 
a^o as I am now. The war has but developed the necessity which 
those favoring the aciuisition of Hawaii foresaw years ago would 
be developed wlienever we might come to such a time as we have 
now reached, when wo are in war. and when we are required to 
keep a navy in the Pacific in order that we may protect our in- 

So I say, Mr. President, if the Congress of the United States 
sees fit, in the exorcise of her power to ])ioraote the general wel- 
fare, to annex this island or any other, it is competent for Con- 
gress to do so. 

Mr. ALLEN. Then I will ask the Senator another (luestion, 

with his permi'ssion . , . , , .^, 

Mr. F( )RAKER. I will say I mean in this kind of a case, with 
the limitations I stated a while ago. 

Mr. ALLEN. Have we the power to deal with any foreign 
nation except by treaty? 

Mr. FOPiAKER. I think so, undoubtedly. 

Mr. ALLEN. I think we have not. 

Mr. FORAKER. There is no provision in the Constitution 
which says we can not deal with other nations otherwise than by 

Mr. ALLEN. That is not the question. The question is 
whether we have the power to do it. 

Mr. FORAKER. The Supreme Court of the United States held 
that there was such a power under the reciprocity clause of the 
McKinley Act 

]\Ir. ALLEN. That was by treaty. 

Mr. FORAKER. It was not by treaty. 

Mr. ALLEN. Certainly it was. 

Mr. FORAKER. No; we simply provided by law that when- 
ever the President of the United States should ascertain a certain 
fact, he then might make a certain declaration which would 
govern the rates of duty on imports from certain countries. 
There was no treaty about it. tt -i. i 

Mr. ALLEN. We authorized the President of the United 
States to enter into a treaty by reciprocity. , , „ . 

Mr. FORAKER. But the Senate did not ratify it. and the Presi- 
dent did not enter into any treaty. Ho simply ascertained certain 
facts. The Supreme Court of the Ignited States held that it was 
constitutional f.n- Congress to so provide, because it was only an 
exercise of administrative power, and the President was engaged 
only in administrative acts when he ascertained those facts. 

Mr. ALLEN. Congress authorized the President to consum- 



12 

mate ceitaiu things if lie found the existence of certain facts. 
The act of Congress, together with the act of the President, made 
a treaty. 

Mr. FORAKER. Bat the House did not join in it except to 
help make the law. The Senator was talkim,' about a treaty which 
the Senate ratilicd. The Senator from Nebraska, if ho will stop 
and think for a minute, will see that the su^'t,'ostion involved in 
his interroi,'atury is not at all tenable, not only in that case, but 
in many others, doubiless. 

Mr. ALLEN. 1 can not myself conceive of an instance where 
we can deal with another nation involving the ijuestion of juria- 
diition or territory independent of the methods of a treaty. 

Mr. FoliAKEK. We did so deal in the ease I put. 1 do not 
think of any others now. but there are doubtless others, and I will 
try to think of some of them by the next session of the Senate. 

But, however that may bi% this is a case where, if I am right in 
the view I have undertaken to express, it is not projier to deal 
with it by treaty, at least not so proper as to deal with it by an 
act of Congress. 

When I so express myself as to indicate that I think it nught 
in some sense be proper to deal with it by treaty, I want to bo 
ni ' ul. The explanation is this: When they undertake to 

li' • a treaty on the other side, aiid we join with them in 

agreeing to a treaty, and it is sulimitted to the legislative branch 
yonder and to the Senate here, and is ratified and becomes a treaty, 
although it may not be the proper subject-matter of a treaty, it 
amounts to the same thing in legal effect as legislation, because 
it is the expression of a willingness and the oiler on their side to 
make a cession and a willingness and au actual acceptance ou 
our part of that which has been offered. 

That is all there is in the legislative act, and the one is there- 
fore the equivalent of the other in ultimate results. I think it is 
more regular to do it as we are now proi)osing to do it than by 
treaty, because, as I say. you can not have a treaty without having 
a contract, and you can not have a contract without having two 
parties to it. 

Mr. ALLEN. That is true. 

Mr. FORAKER. And if one party disappears on the signing 
of tlie comiart you Jio longer have a contract. 

Mr. WHITE. What becomes of it? 

Mr. ALLEN. There are two parties to iho contract up to the 
moment of its execution. 

Mv. FORAKER. But there is no contract until it is executed. 

Mr. ALLEN. Very well; the moment the contract is .signed 
and delivered it is an executed contract. 

Mr. FORAKER. But one party is dead and the contract can 
not continue as the term " treaty " implies. 

Mr. ALLEN. Very well; but that party did not die until after 
the delivery of the contract. 

Mr. FORAKER. Suppose you do not pay the money, who will 
there be to enforce payments The peox)ie of Hawaii become 
merged into the LTnited States. 

Mr. ALLEN. What is true of a treaty with the United States 
is true of any treaty. 

^Ir. FORAKER. No; it is not true of any treaty, because 
when the term "treaty" is properly employed it has relation to a 
continuing contract between sovereignties— sovereignties which 
will exist after the contract. 
a5i3 



13 

Mr. ALLEN. Not necessarily. 

Mr. FORAKER. As in the case I undertook to pnt before, as 
an illustration, of England ceding to us the Bermudas. She 
would part with a portion of her territory by treaty. That would 
be by contract, and she would remain m existence to execute and 
enforce the contract according to its terms and provisions, if we 
did not. 

Mr. ALLEN. But the fact that one party may die after the 
execution of the contract does not change the binding force of the 
contract. 

Mr. FORAKER. What I wanted tosaytotheS'enator, and what 
I have been trying to say all the while, is that while you can legiti- 
mately annex these islands by what we call a treaty, yet you'can 
.iust as legitimately do it. and more appropriately do it, by an act 
of Congress, by a joint resolution. You can do it more appro- 
priately, because, in the first instance, when you undertake to do 
it by treaty the transaction amounts to nothing more than a tender 
on the part of one side and an acceptance on the part of the other, 
and that is all there is in the legislation that we are now consid- 
ering. 

Mr. ALLEN. That is a ground I contest seriously. 

Mr. FORAKER. Allow me to say further to the Senator, I 
wanted to finish the answer to the other question. 

Mr. ALLEN. I should like to say this, that I have not anymore 
doubt about the lack of power to "annex tlio Hawaiian Islands — 
the lack of constitutional power outside of treaty methods or reg- 
ulations—than I have of my existence, not the slightest. It is 
only an indirect way of undertaking to destroy the necessity of 
having a two-thirds majority for a treaty in this Chamber. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, whatever may be the purpose, 
the Senator can have any interpretation of that he wants; that is 
not what I am talking about. If we had two-thirds, no doubt 
the treaty would have been ratified; but from the beginning, as I 
have been contending throughout this debate whenever 1 have 
taken occasion to say anything at all, I have contended that it is 
more appropriate to do this by legislation, for the reasons I have 
indicated. 

Mr. SrooxER rose. 

Mr. FORAKER. I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will wait 
until I answer the Senator from Nebraska. I shall be glad to 
answer the Senator from Wisconsin or anybody e'se if the Sena- 
tor from Tennessee will allow me. This is one of those questions 
I have convictions about. They may be wrong, but I have them 
and I have my reasons for them, and nobody can ask me any ques- 
tion which I can not at least iindertake to answer and give the 
reason why I entertain that opinion. 

Senators talkabout it being unconstitutional to annex except only 
by treaty, as though the Constitution of the United States had pro- 
vided that there should be annexation by treaty. Mr. President, 
the Constitution of the United States is silent on the question of 
the annexation of territory. It does not seem to have entered 
into the minds of the frame'rs of the Constitution to put into that 
instrument any express provision on that subject. They con- 
tented themselves, as they wisely did with other subjects, in 
regard to this subject with a general provision. They gave to 
Congress the power to promote the general welfare, and' that car- 
ries along all the implied powers essential to the consummation of 
that puri^ose. 
3513 



14 

Wlien they came to the treaty-making power they did not say 
in the Constitution wliat shonkthe the subject-matter of a treaty. 
They simply said that treaties mitjht be negotiated by the Presi- 
dent, subject to ratification by the Senate; they did not say what 
we shouhl treat abi)Ut, and I agree with Senators on the otlier 
Bide that a treaty is a contract. You can not have a contract 
unless you have two parlies to it, and you do not have any con- 
tract—that hiisbeen your contention throughout— ujitii the treaty 
has been signed on both sides. The very minute that is done one 
of the parties is gone, and there is noc»»ntinuing contract. There- 
fore it is simply a cession on their i)art and an accejitanco on 
ours, and it might be ilone just as well by le;;islation as otherwise. 

Mr. CLAY. 1 understoo<l the Senator tu siv flin' a fr. iiv was 
a contract which reciuired two parties 

Mr. FORAKEK. At least two. 

Mr. CLAY. Two ]»arties or more; and if we accepted this ter- 
ritory one party was done away with, and therefore this is not a 
treaty, and that we could acquire this territory by legislation in- 
8t< .id of by a treaty. 

N'.w, I should like to nsk the Senator, if that be true, is not his 
])osition simjily this; Tiiat if we treat with the (fovernment of 
t! ' a iKirt of the islands, thi-y reserving the balance 

oi : Would be a treaty and it Would reiiuire a treaty 

to acquire tliat territory; in other words, if wo simply take a part 
of the country, then a treaty is necessary to acijuire it; but it wo 
take the whole of it. then it retjuires simply legislation. Is that 
the position of the Senator from Ohio? ,-j 

Mr. l'\)UAKEIl. 1 stated that position here without any riuali- 'I 

ficatiou in that way a few days ago when engaged in a collofjuy 
with the senior Senator from Cieorgia [Mr. Bacon J. I want to 
(lualify it. as I should liave done at the time, to this extent: 
There may 1 as I have already illustrated in the remarks 
I have l.eeu i now, where it is not ne<es-arily the subject- 
matter of a treaty to accept a part of the territory of a foreign 
country, but in most cases it would Ije. and I illustrated that— the 
Senator was not here, and I will be pardoned for repeating the 
illn--tration— by suppcsing that England were to-day to offer to 
cede to us the Bermuda Islands 

Mr. CLAY. Ur Canada. 

Mr. FORAKER. Or anytliing. Suppose she would ofTer to 
cede to us one of her islands in the sea for a stipulated sum of 
money and the Congress of the United States, or the President of 
the United States, representing both, would signify our willing- 
ness to accept and we should api)ropriate the money and i)ay it, 
it would not be necessary to haveany treaty about it. I apprehend. 

There is nothing in the Constitution which requires a treaty. 
It is a tender on one side and an acceptance on the other, but if, 
instead of making it in that simple way, she were to tender to us 
one of those islands for so much money, saying: •• I will give you 
the island, subject, however, to the right, which I reserve, and 
which you guarantee to me for the enjojnnent through all time 
to come, of a coaling station," or of some other right or privilege 
there, where she has been heretofore supreme, and we were to 
accept the cession subject to the terms and conditions, there would 
be a continuing obligation, and there would lie two continuing 
c(.ntracti ng parties, one of which could enforce it against the 
other, and that would of nece.ssity, as it seems to me, be a proper 



15 

case for a treaty, and not a case for acceptance by an act of 
Congress. 

But tliat is not this case, and I want to distinguish this case 
from that I sav. as a broad proposition, that the Congi-ess of 
the United States has power expressly given to it to promote the 
general welfare, and if we deem it a promotion of the general wel- 
fare to acquire any island of the sea that has its own govern- 
ment—but I will take the case before us— if we deem it to be a 
promotion of the general welfare to accept the cession from the 
Republic of Hawaii of all its territory, one of the conditions being 
that the Kopublic of Hawaii ceases to be, it is not a proper case 
for a treaty, for the very minute the treaty is consummated there 
is no treaty— there is no contract, for one of the contracting parties 
is politically dead and gono. 

Mr. ALLEN. Will tho Senator i.ermit mo again a m< ment? 

The PRESlDINGr OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 

vield? 

' Mr. FORAKER. I yield liy the permission of the Senator from 

Tenne-^see [Mr. Tcrlky], who is entitled to the floor. 

Mr. ALLEN. I brg the Senator's pardon. This ri'soluti(m re- 
cites in the preamble that '"the Rei)ublic of Hawaii having, in 
due form, signified its consent" for the cession of its sovereignty. 
Then it resolves: 

That said ces.sion i.s accepted, ratified, and confirmed. 

Is not that a treaty, if the joint resolution i)a8ses? 

Mr. FORAKER. If it is. then all the objections which have 
been urged to this resolution fall to the ground, for the objectors 
say they would not object if it was a treaty. I am assuming, for 
the sake of this argument, that their oVijections are well taken, 
that it is not a treaty, but a joint resolution or an act of Congress. 
I have .Slid it is equivalent to a treaty. 

Mr. ALLEN. What I want to call the attention of the Senator 
to is this, that it recognizes the existence of two parties to this 
transaction, the Republic of Hawaii on the one hand and the 
Government of the United States upon the other, and the neces- 
sity of the consent of both of these pa'-ties to annexation. What is 
that contract, treaty, or stipulation between these sovereigns':' 

Mr. FORAKEU. With th:it ciue-tion I am not concerned. 

Mr. ALLEN. I think the Senator ought to be conierned. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am perfectly willing to be concerned m 
order that I may accommodate the Senator from Nebraska. What 
1 meant to say was— not to cavalierly dismiss the question the 
Senator would ask— the character of my argument does not in- 
volve a consideration of that matter. 

The question before us is whether it is competent to acquire this 
territory by act of Congress, it being conceded that it would be 
competent, as I understand it is conceded to acquire it by treaty. 
I have said I think it would be competent to acquire it either way, 
and I explained whv. But I have said also that I think it \yonld 
be more appropriate to acquire it by joint resolution or by bill, by 
act of Congress, as we are now proposing to acquire it, than by 
treatv. for the reasons I have given. 

It is true that the joint resolution recites that the Republic ot 
Hawaii have indicated a willingness to inake a cession of that ter- 
ritory. We do not say they have ceded it. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 
K13 



IG 

Mr. FORAKER. Let ns see if we do. I interpreted that word 
a while ac(i>, but I think the Senator from Nebraska was not in 
the Chaniljer at the time. Let me read the wliole of it, no that it 
may go into the Record, and so that what we are saying may bo 
understood: 

Joint resolution to provide for nnnoxinp tbo Hawaiian Islands to the United 

.States. 

Whoro.is the Government of tbo Repuhlicof Hawaii havinp, in duo form, 
Bij;nitied its consent, in tlie manner provided by its constitution— 

That is true, is it not? — 

to code absolutely and witlioTit ros.-rvc to tin' I'mttMi stiit.'si.t Aiin/ricaall 
rij^bts of sdvereijjnty of wliat-ui-vi-r kind in and nvci- tlK> Hawaiian Islands 
and tlu'ir dt'in-nilciicics. and also to cede and transfer to tin- United States 
tbi> ali.-."lntL' lee and nwiiorsliip of all i)ul)lic. jrovernnicnt, or crown lands, 
jniMii- buildint^H or fiirti'i-s, ports, liarbors, niilitary equipment, and all otbrr 
piiMie property of every kind and description belonjiiuK to the Uovernnient 
of the Ilawaiian Islands, to;iether witb every right and appurtenance there- 
unto appertaiiiint;: Tiierefuro, 

JCisiilfiil III) Ihf S, iiiilc (tint Jloiixe of lienreaeniatifeg of the United States of 
Avwrud in CoiujirsH tmscmhlnl. That said ces.sion is accepted, etc. 

Now, what I say is that wliile the word "cession" ordinarily 
wunkl imply that a cession had been actually made, that the deed 
had been .signed, that it wa.s in full force and effect, you must 
construe the word "ce.s.sion" as there employed in the light of 
the context it reter.s to, the preamble; and when you refer to tho 
l»reamble you see the word "cts.siou " properly interpreted means 
nothing more as here used than a declaration on our part that wo 
will aci-ept tho tender whieh they have exjjressed a willingnees 
to make. Whether tho word was appropriately used or nut, that 
is what it means of necessity. 

Mr. ALLEN. When we pa.ss this resolution and it becomes a 
law, the transaction is consummated except the delivery of the 
property. 

Mr. FORAKER. It would have to be accepted on the other 
side. This is not the ratification of a treaty. We can not by a 
joint resolution annex Hawaii. 

Mr. ALLEN. But the joint resolntion says so. 

Mr. FORAKER. We can recite the fact that they have mani- 
fested a willingness, as shown by the treaty which we had in 
mind when that joint resolution was drafted, to make a cession 
to us: but when we do not ratify the treaty, but do something 
else, namely, pass a joint resolution, the transaction is not con- 
summated until they agree to it. 

^Ir. ALLEN. Will the Senator permit me a word further? 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes. 

Mr. ALLEN. The joint resolution reads: 

That said cession is accepted, ratified, and confirmed, and that the said Ha- 
waiian Islands and their dependencies be, and they are herel/j-. annexed as a 
Sart of the territory of the United States and are subject to the sovereijjn 
oniinion thereof, and that all and singiilar the property and rights herein- 
before mentioned are vested in the United States of America. 

Mr. FORAKER. I say the whole phrase must be interpreted, 
as I said a while ago, in the light of the preamble. The language of 
the resolution refers to the ijreamble; and what is already recited 
in the preamble? Not a cession actually made, but a willingness 
to make a cession, an expressed, manifest desire that they should 
be annexed to the Uniteil States, and that we are willing to accept 
them. 

I admit that ordinarily the language would go further than 
that, but you mu.st interpret it in the light of the preamble. I 
351.3 



17 

say it is not a consummated transaction; it does not seem so to 
me, at anv rate, when we simply pass this resolution, because we 
can not by a resolution affect the territories of other countries 
without their consent. 

Mr. ALLEX. If I make a written proposition to transfer to 
the Senator certain property for a certain consideration and he 
accepts that in writing, is not that a consummated contract except 
so far as the mere fact of delivery is concerned? 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ALLEN. Very well. "When the Hawaiian Government, 
without any restriction or proviso, say they transfer their sov- 
ereignty to us, and we say wo accept the transfer and thereby 
assume jurisdiction over that property, is not that a consummated 
contract? 

Mr. FORAKER. I say this in regard to that, if the Senator 
from Nebraska will allow me, that they have made a tender to us. 
That is consummated upon our mKiualified acceptance of it; but 
the recital of the preamble is only that they have manifested this 
willingness: but if this resolution goes to the extent that the Sena- 
tor from Nebraska contends, I certainly do not object to it. I 
should be glad if the transaction were closed by the mere passing 
of this resolution. It may be possible that that may be the con- 
struction of it, and. if so. I wouM be pleased. 

Mr. ALLEN. The question I regard as of the most importance 
is this: The proffered cession by the Hawaiian Ciovernment and 
the passage of this resolution recognize two parties to the trans- 
action. Is not that correct? 

]\rr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. ALLEN. Now, suppose one of the parties dies absolutely 
on the passage of this law as comiiletely as by an ordinary treaty? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly: and for that reason and because 
the whole transaction is ended I say it ought to be by act of Con- 
gress instead of by treatv. 

Mr. ALLEN. If one of the parties dies by virtue of the passage 
of the joint resolution, why should we adopt this form? 

Mr. FORAKER. We ought to adopt this form, as I have been 
trying to explain all the while, because, in my judgment, it is 
better to make a contract by legislation for the acquisition of the 
Hawaiian Islands than by a treaty, wliich is not, rightly consid- 
ered, a contract executed by its consummation, but a continuing 
contract. 

Mr. ALLEN. Not necessarily so. 

Mr. FORAKER. I think it is necessarily so, or, at least, more 
properly so. Take the case I put a while ago of a cession by Eng- 
land to "this country of an island, with the reservation of certain 
rights which wc guarantee to preserve for her and protect her in 
the enjoyment of. That is a case for a treaty, because there is 
an existing contract which is to continue through years, and 
there are two parties to it. If it is a transaction that is consum- 
mated by merely signing the documentary evidence of it, I do not 
think it is necessary to have it by treaty. 

Mr. ALLEN. I wish to say that there can be no force m what 
the Senator savs, if he will permit me, on this proposition, because 
the Hawaiian 'Republic dies as quickly and as effectively by the 
passage of this resolution as bv the adoption of the treaty. 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly; that is what I claim, ltdies.no 
matter which way you consummate it; and because it dies alike 
in both cases, this is the preferable way. 
3513-2 



18 

Mr. ALLEN. Then, why should we throw aside all the tradi- 
tions of our Government and all the precedents and undertake to 
avoid the constitutional objections of the necessity of two-thirds 
to ratify a treaty and adopt this resolution by a majority? 

Mr. FORAKER. I say you do not throw away any tradition, 
nor do you tlirow away any precedent; on the contrary, you con- 
form to the precedents in so far as precedent has anythiiaf? at all 
to do with it. I know the Senator from Georgia |Mr. Bacon] 
matle a very able arerument the other day to distinguish between 
the acquisition of Texas and the annexation of the Hawaiian Re- 
public, the one being the admis-sion of a State into the Union and 
the other the admission of territory, but in no case similar to this 
has it been held that you could not annex by statute or by joint 
resolution, because we have never had any such case. Then why 
should Senators talk about precedents and traditions? 

!Mr. ALLEN. I submit to the Senator that the question was 
submit tf'd to a impular vote of the jieople of Texas. 

Mr. FORAKER, If that is the point of objection, we are not 
talking about that. I have heard a great deal said about the peo- 
ple of Hawaii being consulted on this mattrr and about the in- 
iquities of this thing on that account; that we should order a 
plebiscite and take the sentiment of the people there. Why, Mr. 
President, Senators who manifest such concern about the people 
of Hawaii being consxilted about this matter seem to have over- 
looked the fact that the people of Hawaii have never in all their 
history been consulted in respect to the character of their govern- 
ment. They adojttj d a constitution in 1840, the first they ever 
had. Until that time thej' hail an unlimited monarchy. 

How did they get that constitution? The King simply promul- 
gated it. Nobody was consulted. In 1852. when that constitu- 
tion was changed, the people were not consulted. The King then 
simply promulgated an amended constitution. In 1H(U they had 
the same thing over again; in IB'ST the same thing again, and in 18li.'{ 
C^ucon Liliuokalani was proceeding to do the same thing, and 
that precipitated the rebellion of that time. 

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President 

Mr. FORAKER. Let me say further, before I conclude, that 
her predeces.sor had been elected by a legislative body, which con- 
sisted, I believe, of thirty or forty members. He had a majority 
of the legislative body, a very large majority, but when he was 
elected, the people, whom we are told must "be consulted in all 
these things, rose in a riot; they had anarchy, they broke into the 
Government house, and undertook to murder the man who had 
been elected to be their King; and why and how was murder pre- 
vented? 

Mr. President, it was prevented by the marines of two United 
Staff s ships, which happened to be there in the harbor, being 
landed and being marched up to the Grovemment house, taking 
po.ssession, holding it for ten days, until that King who had been 
elected without any con.sultation of the people could be firmly 
established upon the throne he had taken. This talk about con- 
sulting the people of Hawaii is unusual in two respects. 

The idea that our Government should go behind the Govern- 
ment of Hawaii in order to consult the citizens of that Republic is 
a thing unheard of in international law and diplomacy, and in the 
Bccond place it is an extraordinary manifestation of interest in the 
suffrage rights of a people who never had any suffrage rights, 
who never were consulted in any case. 

3013 



19 

Mr. ALLEN. Does tho Senator lioltl to the doctrine that tlie 
legislative and executive power of the Hawaiian Islands can trans- 
fer the sovereigntj' of that power and destroy its Government 
without consiilting the people? 

Mr. FOR AKER. 1 hold that there is a Government in Hawaii, 
and that Government is called the Republic of Hawaii. It is ac- 
knowledged to be the lawful Government and the only Govern- 
ment in the islands of Hawaii, acknowledged not only by this 
Government, but by all the governments of the world that have 
acted in the matter at all, recognized as the true and lawful Gov- 
ernment of the islands of Hawaii, and I say it is competent for 
that Government to act. 

It is not for us to look how it was t'stablished, although I liavo 
no hesitation to look at that. 1 find no trouble about that. When 
that Government thus recognized sees fit to enter into a treaty 
with us, it would be an extraordinary thing if we were to under- 
take to consult the people behind it in order to see whether or not 
they were willing that their constituted authorities should make 
the kind of treaty they have proposed. 

Mr. ALLEN. Then the Senator holds to the doctrine that th* 
legislative branch of the Government, or any branch, or all com- 
bined, who are the agents of the Government to carry out its 
purpose, may lawfully and constitutionally overturn and destroy 
that of which tiiey are tho agents? 

Mr. FORAKEK. Untiuestionably, when they are authorized 
to do so; and they are authorized by the constitution of Hawaii 
to do that very thing. 

Mr. ALLEN. But it was established during a revolution. 

Mr. FOIiAKER, Suppose it was. Is it not the lawful govern- 
ment? What was the revolution in Hawaii? There was not any- 
thing done in connection with the revolution that you and I and 
every Senator would not have joined in doing if we had been 
there. 

^Ir. BACdN. I beg to enter a disclaimer for myself. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Mr. President 

Mr. PETTIGREW. There is not a Senator on this floor who 
would be a party to such a transaction, and I will show that 
clearly liefore I get through. 

Mr. FORAKER. That is a matter of opinion. I have read the 
history of that transaction in Hawaii, and I do not see that there 
was anything done by the representative of the United States in 
Hawaii that ought not to have been done to protect the property 
interests of our citizens and to protect the honor and dignity of 
this country. 

Mr. ALLEN. If the Senator will permit me to say it — it may 
not be very germane, but I have no doubt— I was in the Chamber 
when the revolution took i)lace — that the act of Mr. Stevens was 
absolutely and inexcusably unlawful, and if President Cleveland 
had promptly taken steiis to right it and had not waited months 
and months until a change of government took place, I wouldhave 
been one of the Senators who would have sujiported him. 

Mr. FORAKER. After all that has been said, I say again, as 
I said before, that that is a matter of opinion. 1 have my opinion, 
and I say, having read the history of this transaction, that the 
representatives of the United States, and particularly Mr. Stevens, 
did not do anything in Hawaii with respect to the revolution 
which it was not their duty to do; and the fact that they laiided 
the marines there is no more potent objection than when the 
3513 



20 

marines were landed a few years ago, to wbicli I called attention 
a few luinntcs ajjo. 

Mr, CAFFERY. This discussion is very interesting. I have 
not heard the whole of it, but I slionld like to know the Senator's 
position on the matter of the treaty. If I state his jiosition cor- 
rectly. I will fuUow it with a ([uestion. If I do not, the Senator 
will correct nie. I think he stated that the Hawaiian Govern- 
ment authorized a tender, made a tender, of the territory of Ha- 
waii: did not absolutely cede it, because they could not do so, but 
made a tender of c ossi.^n. 

Mr. F(.)KAKKR. I'ardon me. What I said was this: I said 
tlu' facts as recited in the preamble amounted to an expression of 
a willin^niess to cede it. 

Mr. C'AFFEKY, Very well; amountedtonwillini^nesstocedeit. 

Mr. F( >RAKER. To an expression of williuf^ness. 

Mr. CAFFERY. The Senator says when we accept it, when 
we meet that willingrness by a joint resolution, tliat that does not 
amount to a full alienation of the territory of Hawaii to the United 
States: in other words, it i.s not a contract consummated. 

^Ir. FORAKER. Now. the Senator must remember what I 
said about that. I said that w;ia a matter aljout wliich I was not 
disi)osed to r.iise any contention. l)ut 1 thou^^ht it mij^tit be con- 
tended that because they expres.sed that willingness in the form 
of a treaty, wliich we had refused to ratify, they miglit say th:\t 
they wore not b<:)und by .such action as wo are proposing to take, 
by joint resolution, because when they made the ott»-r it was in 
tl:e form of a treaty which we refu.sed to ratify. Whether they 
will regard themselves as bound by this— I have no doubt they 
will— is a matter about which there might be debate. In my 
judgment, it would not be held that this was the end of tlie trans- 
action, because the protTer was by treaty. But ujKjn that I have 
no di.sposition to be contentious. I may be in error. 

Mr. CAFFERY. In other words, they made the proposition in 
the form of a treaty, and we accept it in another form. 

Mr. FORAKER. We made a proposition to take them at the 
same time they made a proposition to come. We both acted by 
treaty, and it was in the contemplation of both tliat we would act 
by treaty. I can understand, if the Senator v/ill allow me to state 
more plainly what is in my mind, how the Republic of Hawaii 
might say, "lam perfectly willing to go in by treaty, as was 
agreed and contemplated and as I expressed a willingness to do, 
but I have some question about this prcxedure. I have read the 
debatesof the distinguished Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Tlhm^v] 
and the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. B.\C"o.\J and other 
Senators to the effect that it is unconstitutional to take me in in 
this way, and I do not want to go in unconstitutionally. There- 
fore I decline to go in. This is a different road from the one we 
agreed npon." I have in my mind the thought that they niight eeo 
fit to take some such action as that, if they are not willing to 
come now as they were when we negotiated the treaty, and in 
that event I think they would be free to take such position. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I iinderstandthat if the Government of Hawaii 
accepts this joint resolution, it would then amount to a contract. 

:Mr. FORAKER. I think it would. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Is that the Senator's contention? 

Mr. FORAKER. It would be an executed contract, certainly, 
and the Government of Hawaii would pufs out of existence. So, 
if we ratitied the treaty, it would pass out of existence and there 
3513 



I 



21 

would not any longer be a treatj'. It would be an executed con- 
tract. There would be no longer two parties to the contract. 

Mr. BACON. I should like to ask the Senator from Ohio a 
question in this connection. If, on the other hand, the Govern- 
ment of Hawaii were to refuse to stand bj- what it has hereto- 
fore agreed, would not the joint resolution be absolutely niill and 
void and of no effect? 

Mr. FORAKER. It is possible. That is what I have said. 

Mr. BACON. There is no possibility about it. Must it not 
necessarily be so? 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not say nece.ssarilj'. 

Mr. BACON. Unless we are going to enforce it by war, as a 
matter of compulsion. 

Mr. FORAKER. I can explain to the Senator, if ho will allow 
me. just what 1 have in my mind when 1 say "possible." If the 
view which I suggested as ])0ssible 1o be taken by Hawaii should 
be taken, that this was not a ratification of the treaty, that she 
had never proposed to come in in this 'Ray— if she should take that 
view of it and refuse, it might be construed that she has a right so 
to construe it. So it is one of the debatable propositions, because 
she did not offer to come in bj- a joint resolution. She offered to 
come in by treaty. If, on the other hand, she should say "I regard 
this as an acceptance," and I think she will, then she will come in. 

Mr. BACON. In other words, the validity of the joint resolu- 
tion must depend at least upon the consent and agreement of 
Hawaii. Is not that neces.sarily so? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. That is what I have contended all 
the time. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Will the Senator permit me to ask him an- 
other question which I intended to ask? In response to mv first 
inquiry he stated that the act of the Government of Hawaii was 
a mere tender, a mere expression of willingness to cede. 

Mr. FORAKER. So the preamble recites. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Then, if we accept by joint resolution the 
offer of willingness to cede, does that make anything more than 
an executory contract? 

^Ir. FORAKER. I say that is one of the debatable proposi- 
tions. It is not neces'^ary for me to pass upon it. I have called 
attention to the fact that I think there might be controversy over 
that. There is room there for argument as to what the construc- 
tion should be. It is not necessary that I should settle it. What 
I am endeavoring to establish is that, according to my view, we 
may constitutionally accept the islands by legislative act. 

Mv. WHITE. Before my friend the Senator from Ohio leaves 
the floor, if I am not interrupting him, and I feel that I have in- 
terrupted him several times, I should like to know whether he 
pays any attention to the thirty-second article of the Hawaiian 
constitution. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have called attention to it. 

Mr. WHITE. I should like to know whether he thinks that 
the general- welfare clause of the Hawaiian constitution covers all 
the omitted authority with reference to a grant of that Republic. 

Mr. FORAKER. I have called attention to it already," and I 
will say to the Senator that I think we can afford to dismiss it by 
saying that is Hawaii's part of the business. 

Mr. WHITE. If we are making a contract with a nation. I sup- 
pose the ability of the nation to contract is of some materiality. 
It is to me, although it seems it is not to the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Ohio. 
a5i;J 



oo 



Mr. FORAKER. No; the Sonator iruiu California does mc in- 
.iustico when he inipntos that I liavo no reganl tor tho ability of 
Hawaii to contract. What I had in mind— 1 did not mean to bo 
discourteous— in my answer to the Senator was that that is the 
constitutional provision. They have in making the treaty acted 
in conformity with tho requirements of that provision. Tho 
Senator fri)m (.'alilornia so contends, I believe. 

Mr. WHITE. I do not. I say there has been no treaty maile. 

Mr. FORAKER. I know; in proposing the treaty, then. Thero 
is no contract. 

Mr. WHITE. Thev have taken one step. 

Mr. FORAKER. I know. In ])r<tposing that they have acted 
in conformity with tho Constitution. If we should ratify tho 
treaty and they should ratify it— I believe they have ratified it- 
there would be a treaty, and they would have acted in conformity 
with that i)rovision of {he Constitution. Now, tlien, how they will 
act when tlie joint resolution is passed I do not know. That is 
something to be hei-eafter dealt witli. What I meant to s:iy to 
the Senator was that it has no relation to the (lucstion I am argu- 
ing, of the constitutional power of Congress to accept the territory. 

Mr. WHITE. I feel, as the Senator from (Jhio is a member of 
tho Committee on Foreign Relations and the only member of 
the committee who has thus far ventured any defen.so of what I 
consider to be a verv \)reposterous i)roposition 

Mr. FORAKER. " Let me say to the Senator that he does tho 
Foreign Relations Committee 'a very great injustice wlien he 
make.s that remark. The Senator from California must remem- 
ber, and it ought to be made to appear in the Ri:cnun, that we 
considered the treaty for months in executive session, and in ex- 
ecutive session this whole subject was most elaborately and 
exhaustively discussed by the friends as well as the opponents of 
annexation. 

Mr. WHITE. And having been so discussed, the di.stinguished 
Senator comes here admitting the justness of criticisms made 
upon the phra.seology of this long-entcrtaincd resolution, and ex- 
presses doubt as to whether the measure, which was thus long 
considered and reported after gi'cat deliberation, was in reality 
the proper method of procedure. 

iSIr. FORAKER. The Senator from California is unwarranted 
in his statement that I admit that there is ground for criticism of 
the language employed. The fact that I might not have employed 
the word "cession" is not equivalent to criticising it. I contend 
that it is a perfectly appropriate word when considered in the 
light of the context, as it should be considered. There can not 
be any question as to what is meant by the word "cession," be- 
cause it says the "said cession." 

Mr. WHITE. What the preamble says is very little said, as we 
know in usual matters of legislation. The word "cession" has a 
well-defined meaning, admitted by the Senator from Ohio to be in 
accordance with the definition given to it by myself and other 
Senators upon this side of the Chamber. That resolution is now 
before the Senate. It is not a case where we are considering some- 
thing done and attempting to find out the meaning of a legi.slative 
body which has passed a law, but we are now framing a law con- 
taining an admitted ambiguity which there is no suggestion to 
correct. 

Mr. FORAKER. So the word " grant" has a definite meaning. 

Mr. WHITE. Certainly. 

3513 



23 

Mr. FORAKER. If you use it with respoct to personal prop- 
erty and the context shows it, every court would say it has refer- 
ence to the i^assing of i^ersonal i^roperty and interpret it accord- 
ingly. 

I am much obliged to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Tcr- 

LEY]. 

Mr. WHITE. I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
liberality to me in the matter of interruption. 

ISIr. CLAY. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to ask him 
a question? 

Mr. FORAKER. I have an engagement to be at the depot at 
3.4"), and it is now 'iMO. 

Mr. CLAY. Just one minute. I understood the Senator to 
state on the floor of the Senate that it was absolutely necessary 
to acqiiire the Louisiana purchase by treaty from the siiiipl(3 fact 
that there were continuing rights to be enforced by the United 
States to the people occupying that territory. If the Senator 
takes that position, is not the case now pending before us a simi- 
lar one? If we adopt tlie joint I'esolution. are there not continued 
rights due from us to the people of that island? Is it not true tliat 
the argument which he has apiilied to the purchase of Louisiana 
would apply in this case? 

Mr. FORAKER. Not at all. The case of Louisiana affords 
gi-ound for the broad distinction whicli I liave been nuiking. The 
French owned Louisiana and they ceded it to the United States. 
Tlie French Government continued in existence. They ceded it, 
not merely for a sum of money, but upon certain stipulated con- 
ditions as to the rights of the occupants and inhabitants of the 
country, which conditions continued into the future. Therefore, 
I say it Avas a case where a contract was made and the contract 
did not i)erish when it was consummated, because both parties 
continued to exist afterwards as before. But hero the distinction 
is tliat the minute you consummate the contract the Republic of 
Hawaii falls to the ground, and there can not be such a thing as 
a contract without i)arties. 

Mr. PETTIGREW. There are conditions in the treaty which 
we liave to carry out. 

Mr. FORAKER. To pay monej-. 

Mr. PETTIGREW. We assume a debt. 

Mr. FORAKER. We assume to pay a debt, and the very mo- 
ment that the treaty is ratified, if it should be, the people of the 
Republic of Hawaii become citizens of the United States, become 
our subjects, pass under tlie dominion of our law, and the Gov- 
ernment of the Republic of Hawaii passes out of existence. 

Mr. PETTIGREW. The only distinction is that there is no 
country in existence that can punish us for breach of contract. 

Mr. FORAKER. The only distinction is that there is not any 
contract where there are not two parties. 

Mr. PETTIGREW. There are two parties when the contract 
is made. 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly; and the Cfintract was consum- 
mated when it was made. That is all the distinction there need be. 

I\Ir. PETTIGRE \V. Its terms do not carry consummation when 
made. 

Mr. FORAKER. It is not a question of good faith. We are 
talking about the constitutional power— whether of necessity this 
must be done by treaty, and I saj' no. 
3513 

d 



to 



/ 



SPBECH 

OF 

HON. J. B. FORAKER, 

AT 

iAZOOSTER, OHIO, 

OCTOBER 5, 1898. 



Fellow-Citizens : 

We are approaching aiiotlier election. This time we 
choose not only state officers, but also members of Congress. 
Our action will have reference tlierefore to both state and 
national affairs. As to both we are attended by auspicious 
circumstances. Republicans are to be congratulated upon 
the success with which they have been represented in both 
these fields of public duty. Never in the history of our 
commonwealth have we had a more creditable state admin- 
istration than that which 

GOVERNOR BUSHNELL 

Has given us. Under his wise guidance our finances have 
been freed from embarrassment and the state has been able to 
meet its obligations, not only of indebtedness, but of duty gen- 
erally. The public institutions have never been in better con- 



'(ol 



dition. Economy, good ordcM* and u^ood results aic witiiossed 
on every hand. Tlicro liavo been no peculations, defalcations 
or scandals of any character. The canrds, the penitentiary 
and henevolent institutions come up to the highest require- 
ments and expectations of good govei-nmcnt . All honoi- to 
such a (Governor. His administration will live lonij: in his- 
tory as a model, seldom equaled, prohahly never to he 
excelled. No words of compliment and praise, gratitude 
and appreciation are too strong to he spoken in his favor. 
He merits all. No snapping and snarling or carping aiul 
sneering of spiteful malignants, who place selfish ends and 
factional triumphs alujve party good, public service and 
party honor, will affect his record or conceal from hi> fi'l- 
low-ciiizens, his noble, generous, loving character as a man, 
his sterling ipialities as a Kepublitian or the just and hon- 
ored distinction he has acliieved as our chief magistrate. 
Turning now to 

NATIONAL AFFAIRS 

We .see only the most inspiring conditions. 

President Mclvinley has justified the most sanguines 
expectatioiis of his most ardent friends. Great respon- 
sibilities and high duties have fallen to his lot. TT< lias 
met every demand and has triumph<'(l over every tlilliculty. 
He enjoys the admiration a-" well as the confidence, not 
only of the whole country, but of the world. His adminis- 
tration will live in history with those of Lincoln and (rrant. 
The course of events has been such as to create a new po- 
litical atmosi)here and a new political life. It is as though 
old things had passed away and all things had become new. 
Cleveland's administration settled the tariff question for 
fifty years to come. It is no longer necessary to resort to 
argument to show the beneficence of protection. The war 
with its blazing enthusiasm has killed " IC to 1 " and 



burned out all petty heresies, isms and pessimistic ideas, 
which, for the want of something better, have been occupy- 
ing tlio minds of minor political organizations. We in- 
stinctively realize that we are today on a higher and broader 
plane, with ditferent and more heroic questions to consider, 
than have been presented to us during the last quarter of a 
century. 

THE WAR 

Came while a Republican a(lininistrati«in was in i)Ower, 
and must now bu settled by that administration. For its 
origin, its ciiaracter and its settlement we are, there- 
fore, accountable. If wo can give satisfactory answers 
upon all these points, wo should bo upheld and continued 
in power; for fidelity and success in these respects have 
been of the highest concern and of the greatest imi)ortance 
to the American people. The beginning was in our duty 
to Cuba. What that was can not Ix- fully understood and 
api)reciated without taking into account iIk- Monroe Doc- 
trine and its applications to the case. One of the proi)Osi- 
tions iiivolvfd in this doc-trine, for wliich the American 
people have resolutely stood since its enunciation in 1828, 
is that, except only as European powers may be already 
represented by their i)ossessions in the Western Hemis- 
phere, they shall have nothing whatever to do witli any 
island or state in North or South America or belonging to 
the American system. For this reason England, France, 
Russia and Germany, all the great nations of the earth, 
were debarred from interfering in any manner with the 
affairs of Cuba. We had warned thehi that we ourselves 
would look after that island, and that only ourselves would 
be permitted to look after it. The result was that whatever 
of responsibility arose for what was occurring in Cuba be- 
longed to us, and to us alone. We had, therefore, a special 



?7 



duty with respect to that peoplo. It is not necessary to go 
into a detailed account of the troubles between Cuba and 
Spain. It is sufficient to say that the government of the 
island by Spain was so tyrannical, so o|)pressive, so a])usive 
and so burdensome that it was iin[)ossiblo for any human 
endurance ti) tolerate it. With a |)o|)iilat ion of only a 
million and a half in round numbers, most of them 
extremely [)Oor, the island was compelled to pay revenues 
to Spain amounting annually t«; more than twenty-five 
millions of dollars. They were required to pay not only 
upon all their property, i)Oth real and personal, at the 
most exorbitant rates of taxation, but they were indirectly 
taxed in every way thai inL;<'nuity (-oulfl d(»vi.se. 

A Cuban could not belong to a literary society or a 
social club without a special [)ermit therefor, and he (;ould 
not attend any kind of a i)ublic, social or club meeting 
without a notice to the authorities, so that an official might 
also attend to report proceedings to the government ; and 
for all these burdens of taxation and deprivations of per- 
sonal libert}' there was no compensation. Excei)t only the 
mere pretense, they were denied schools and public high, 
ways, and, in short, all modern facilities for the enjoyment 
of modern civilization. It is no wonder that they rebelled. 
No people, capable of resistance, would endure such a tyr. 
anny. During the ten years war murder, rapine, outrage 
and ruin characterized the conduct of the Spaniards. It is 
established history that during that period, in addition to 
all who fell in battle, and in addition to all who were cap- 
tured and put to death as prisoners of war taken in battle, 
there were more than eighteen thousand men, women and 
children sentenced to death and executed because their 
sympathies were with the cause of the Cubans. It w^as 
during this war and at Santiago, now forever a place of 
great historic interest to all Americans, tliat fifty-three of 



/ f 



the crew of the Virginius were brutally murdered. All the 
world expected the United States to go to war with Spain 
then ; almost all Americans felt humiliated when our nation 
failed to do so. Hamilton Fish was then Secretary of 
State, and furnished tiie argument on which President 
Grant excused himself for not avenging the inhuman out- 
rage. It is a fact worthy of note, if not significant coin- 
cidence, that twenty-odd years later, at the same spot, 
young Hamilton Fisli, the grandson of the Secretary, should 
fall at the first fire, and be followed to his death by thou- 
sands of others — the flower of our youth and our army. 

But l»nit;il and uncivilized as was the war of 18G8 to 
1878, the present war has far suri)assed it in those features. 
This strugcle was but a renewal of the former war with 
added provocation and added bitterness and savagery. 
Cuban soldiers, when cai)tured, although taken in battle 
with tht'ir arms in tlieii- liands, fighting under their 
adopted flag, were, almost without exception, immediately 
and in a most brutal manner [)ut to death. Ruin, waste, 
destruction, pillage, murder and atrocity prevailed on every 
hand. Tiie war had already attracted the attention of the 
world as exceptionally uncivilizetl and inhuman, when, on 
the IGlIi day of Febriiai-y . ISiJT, it was made to exceed in 
those particulars any war of either ancient or modern 
times. For three hundred years the brutalities of Alva in 
the Netherlands have shocked the students of history, but 
when the reconcentration order of Weyler went into effect 
the most inhuman barbarity commenced that has ever been 
known in the annals of civilization. Innocent pacificos, 
men, women and children were huddled together by the 
thousands and tens of thousands for the express purpose of 
being murdered by starvation. President McKinley in his 
message of December 6, 1897, fittingly characterized this 
barbarity as a war of extermination. It is estimated that 



^7 



-y 



from this cause alone more than 200,000 of these lielpless 
victims imH tlieir death. Day after day and week after 
week and month after month, until April, 1808, our faith- 
ful consular representatives in Cuha reported the horrible 
conditions which they wei-e compelled to witness, and 
throu.i,di all these terrible months there came to us an un- 
broken wail of woe and a desi)airing appeal for this ^reat 
Christian country to come to the rescue. Pi-esident Mc- 
Kinley repeated the off<'r that had already been made by 
President Cleveland of friendly mediation, and did every- 
thing that could be done by diplomacy to end the war on a 
basis that would be honorable to Spain, or. if not that, to 
at least ameliorate its conditions and bi-in<; it to a civilized 
basis ; but in vain. Finally, wlicn the conditions became 
intolerable, and the President was satisfied that he had ex- 
hausted all his powei's, he submitted the whole matter to 
Congress for its action. lie did not have long to wait. 
Congress had been propareil to act for inontlis ; but it had 
waited on the President until he, having exhausted dii)lo- 
macy, should present his views u[)on the situation. He 
recommended that we should intervene, if that became 
necessary, as a neutral power, to impose, for the [)urposes 
of pacification, an equal constraint uj)on both Cubans and 
Spaniards. But the Congress had determined that the 
time had come for the Si)aniard to go, and that our inter- 
vention should be one of hostility to Spain, and that our 
action should be expressed in words so plain that all could 
understand what we meant. We accordingly demanded 
the immediate withdrawal by Spain from the island, and 
authorized the President, in the event of Spain's refusal to 
comply, to drive her out. This action was justified by the 
fact that Spain's government of the island had been so 
wretched and so wicked that she had forfeited all rights of 
sovereignty and because she had created such hatred and 



A3 



bitterness between the Spaniards and the Cubans that there 
never could be peace and prosperity in the island with a 
continuation of Spanish sovereignty, no matter how liberal 
a government might be allowed. In our opinion the 
Cubans had rebelled for just cause. They had struggled 
heroically. They had expended more blood and 
treasure and life than any other people in the 
history of the world had ever been called upon 
to expend to secure liberty, freedom and independence. 
They were entitled upon that account alone to the recogni- 
tion and help of this great republic. But aside from con- 
siderations of that character, upon ihe mere ground of hu- 
manity, which was the controlling feature in the whole 
matter, it was our duty to [»ut a stop to the shameful 
savagery, rapine and starvation that were being practiced. 
We could not longer refrain from taking action without 
ourselves becoming morally responsible for the thousands 
of lives that were perishing. Aside from all these consid- 
erations, we liad a furtlier riglit to intervene. It was nec- 
essary for the preservation of our own interests. Our 
commerce with the ishnul had been entirely destroyed. 
Thousands of American citizens lived in Cuba and were en- 
gaged in business there. Their property, to the amount of 
many millions, had been destroyed without any compensa- 
tion whatever, either present or prospective. Many of our 
citizens had been arrested and imprisoned and some of them 
had been put lo death. All who were taken into custody 
had been cruelly mistreated. We had been compelled as a 
government to expend millions of dollars to patrol our 
coast to prevent infractions of international law by 
our citizens in behalf of the Cubans, toward whom our 
hearts went out in patriotic sympathy ; a sympathy that 
was expressed in the Republican platform, on which Presi- 
dent McKmley stood when elected, in the following Ian- 



?7^ 



guago : "We watch witli deep and abiding interest the he- 
roic battle of the Ciil)an i)atriots against cruelty and oppres- 
sion, and our best hopes go out for the full success of their 
deternjincd contest lor liberty." 

As President McKinley said, the then existing condi- 
tions had become intolerable. We ilid all in our power to 
remedy them without resort to extreme measures. IJut in 
addition to all this there remained the destruction of the 
Main(\ This battle ship had been destroyed in the harbor 
of Havana while there on a fi-iemdly mission and in the 
custody of their oiHcials, by a sub-marine mine — a govern- 
ment agency — which coultl not have been exphxb'd except 
only by ollicia! action or oflicial r.egligence. This "incir 
dent," as it was called, was an atrocious ;ind |)erliilious 
crime, and the report of the ollicial Board of liKiniry, al- 
though not saying so in so many words, yet fast(Mied the 
responsil)ility for it upon Spain. It was sentimental non- 
sense to talk about settling such an afl'ront by arbitration 
and accepting a money compensation as a satisfaction for 
the lives of our murdered sailors. Peace at such a price 
would have been pusillanimous and would have forfeited 
all respect for us on the part of the rest of the world. 
Therefore it was we had reached the place where both 
humanity and self-respect commanded us to fight. Many 
preferred an open, out-and-out declaration of war, and reso- 
lutions of that kind were introduced ; but upon full consid- 
eration, Congress determined to intervene and pacify the 
island by the expulsion of the Spaniards. 1 mention all 
this in detail and with particularity because there are those 
who have been saying that this action of Congress was un- 
warranted and that the war that followed in consequence 
was cruel and unjust. In an interview recently published 
in the New York Herald and republished in other papers, 
ex-Secretary Sherman, who was then the head of the State 



9 

Department, is reported as using this language : "The en- 
tire responsihility of the war with Spain rests upon the 
shoulders of Congress. It was the Congress who de- 
clared war and delivered to Spain an insulting and ex- 
asperating proclamation." Then, after quoting the resolu- 
tions that were adopted, speaking of the war as " cruel 
and unjust," Mr. Sherman said : " It was not necessary 
for us to go to war with S])ain. * * * j could have 
arranged a treaty hy which Spain would have peacefully 
retired from the island of Cuba. ''' * * Spain was 
in dire need of money at that time, and I believe that for 
loss than a huntli-ed of millions of doUars to ho paid by this 
Grovernment she would have called her soldiers home and 
given to the Cubans such a system o\' autonomy as would 
have rendered them practically independent." 

Other distinguished statesmen of our own j)arty have 
spoken to the same general effect ; one of them said the war 
was not only unnecessary, but it was the work of yellow jour- 
nals and demagogues and self-se(?king politicians. If I have 
spoken to any purpose, it is scarcely necessary for mc to say 
that the action of Congress was not premature or inappropri- 
ate, but fully warranted and the war was not cruel and 
unjust, but inevitable and as righteous on the part of the 
United States as high and responsible duty could make it. 
Neither was it the work of yellow journals or demagogues 
or self-seeking politicians, but the result of patriotic, sin- 
cere, God-fearing and liberty-loving American men and 
w^omen, who, although dreading war and its desolations, 
were yet not ready to turn a deaf ear to the cries of human- 
ity, and submit to insults and affronts that no nation could 
pass by in silence, without, as a consequence, forfeiting its 
title to the respect of other nations. I had no patience 
then with the proposition that Spain should receive com- 
pensation for her abdication of a country she had mis- 



97^ 



1(1 



governed for ceiiiuries and liad despoiled and desolated. 1 
had no patience with the idea that the Maine could be left 
for its just settlement to the Spanish sense of justice and 
honor. I had no faith in the idea that autonomy for 
Cuba with a continnanet' of Spanish sovereignity would be 
accei)table to the peoi)le of the island or result in pacifi- 
cation or good governmeni. 1 had no patience with 
neutral intervention — treating Cubans and Spaniards alike. 
I believed that the [)eople of Cuba had sacrificed of their 
blood and treasure and life for independence to such an 
extent that they were entitled to it, and I believed that it 
was our duty toward tliem in that belialf to come to their 
rescue, and I further bcdieved that Spain not only deserved 
to be driven out of Cul^a, on the ground that she ha<l by 
her wickedness in government forfeited her right of 
sovereignity there, but I believed also that her ollenses 
against our Government were of such character that she 
merited punishment and that we owed it to ourselves to 
inflict it ui>on her. I said all this then and I repeat it all 
now. It was in this way that the war came about. I need 
not stop to speak in detail of what f<jllowed. There has 
been much said recently al>out incomi)etency and misman- 
agement on account of which our troops have severel}' suf- 
fered. No doubt there have been some mistakes. It would 
be remarkable if there had not been, but a full investiga- 
tion will vindicate the zeal and patriotism, the courage and 
tlie integrity of all who have been assailed. All have 
only tears for the dead and those who have been stricken 
with disease and overtaken with affliction. 

These are the inseparable features of all wars, and 
notwithstanding all that may have occurred of this 
character, the fact remains that the record of the three 
months during which the war continued is the most bril- 
liant chapter in American history. It has scarcely an 



V 



11 



equal in the annals of the world. At Manila, at Santiago, 
both on the land and on the water, our sailors and our sol- 
diers won imperishable renown, both for themselves and 
their country. Almost before we realized that we actually 
had war, Spain was suing for i)eace. Two of her navies 
had been completely destroyed, and one of her largest 
armies had ])een defeated and compelled to surrender and 
submit to re{)atriation. The names of Dewey and Samp- 
son and Schley and Ilobson have been written high on the 
scroll of fame with those of John Paul Jones, Decatur^ 
Farragut .nid Cushing. Our regular army vindicated 
itself most grandly. It was sin;iil in numbers, but every 
man was a hero. Ofticers and mm bore themselves with 
intrepid gallantry, and on every Held where opportunity 
was afforded they added luster tu the American name. 
(Jur volunteers vied with tlie regulars in the splendid cour- 
acre disulaved. The farnuM- bov, iho lal)oring man and the 
millionaire mareiied side by side, fought side by side, and 
died side bv side. There was among them no caste or dis- 
tinction ; their only rivalry was in the discharge of duty 
and in loyalty and devotion to the flag. 

From the beginning until the end of the struggle our 
successes were uninterrupted. When Dewey destroyed the 
Spanish fleet at Manila everyi)ody said that it was a bril- 
liant stroke, but many ui'ge.l that it was accidental and 
could not happen again ; but wlien Schley and Sampson 
destroyed the fleet of Cervera at Santiago the whole world 
saw that we had not only ships and guns but also men 
behind the guns, and that our* successes were merited. 
Good work was expected of our regular troops, but when it 
was seen that we could in a few weeks put 250,000 volun- 
teers in the field and arm and discipline them, and have 
them fight with such splendid courage and such distin- 
guished heroism as characterized the Rough Riders, the 

f5 



75 



1-J 



wiiole world saw that wo wore not merely a lot of shop 
keepers, as we had been contemptuously callod, but a splen- 
did nation \yith a great population and great resources and a 
great aptitude for war. In eonsequenco, wo came out of 
the struggle greater, stronger an<l more respected than we 
have ever been in our history. This pn^stigo will not only 
insure us the respect of the world, but it will be of inesti- 
mable advantage to us in our trade relations with other 
countries. Evervl>odv now knows that, while wo are slow 
to anger and plenteous in mercy, yet if pressed too far we 
can be ami will be terrible in war. Not only lias there 
been this general advancement of our national name and 
power and prestige, but there has been wrought at homo 
among ourselves as a result of the war a!i almost incalcula- 
ble benefit. Sectional lines and sectional feelings have 
been largely, if not altogether, effaced. Leo and Wheeler 
and Shafter and Lawton and their comratles, the sons of 
the South and the sons of the North, stood shoulder to 
shoulder and contributed equally and alike to the glorious 
results on land, while Ilobson and Dewey and Schley and 
Sampson have in the same manner represented the two great 
sections witii like results on the water. If there had been 
no other consequence than the enhancement of national 
prestige and this elfacoment of sectional divisions we 
would have been amply compensated. l>ut they were not 
the purpose of the war. They were only its incidentals. 
It was not for them we fought. It was our aim to put a 
stop to the inhumanity that caused the war, and that we 
have done. Thoro will be no more Spanish tyranny in 
Cuba. There will be no more Woylerism, no more starva- 
tion, no more of the heartless grinding of the tax gatherers 
in that beautiful island. There will be no further denials 
of human and personal liberty. Cuba is free, and in due 
time her government will be recognized, and she will in 



13 

due time liave her independence and ultimately seek and 
secure annexation to the United States, as Hawaii has 
done. But in this war we have builded wiser tlian we 
knew. Our fathers of the Revolution did not take up arms 
for independence, but only in I'esistance of tyranny. Events 
broadened their [lurpose and independence was the result. 
Abraham Lincoln called for 7"). 000 troops to save the 
Union, but events broadened liis purpose and slavery was 
abolished. Our initial action had reference only to Cuba, 
but Spain dcchired foi- war generally and tlius broadened 
tlie field of operations so as to include Porto Rico and the 
Pliilippines ; and so it is that we Iiave greater prestige, 
closer union, free Cuba and tcrritoi-ial ac(|uisitions of in- 
calculable importance. These are I'esults of inestimable 
value, bui we have learned some lessons of the wai- that 
will be of (!ven greater value if we remember and profit by 
them. In the first jilace we have learned that it is not 
wise to be wholly or pi-actically unprepared for war. It is 
a wise maxim still in time of peace prepare for war, at 
least to the extent of maintaining an army and navv com- 
mensurate with our wealth, i)opulation and interest; 
and in this connection we have learned that we 
can not depend upon great wealth or great pop- 
ulation or zealous patriotism alone for our nation- 
al defense. It is a piece of good fortune that the 
long peace since our civil war was first interrupted by 
trouble with Spain rather than with England or some other 
great power able to strike at once. We have learned the 
necessity for coast defenses, a good navy and a good army, 
both adequate in numbers as well as in quality. We have 
learned another thing, and that is that the Nicaragua Canal 
is essential not only to commerce, but also to our efticient 
defense. To reach the scene of action the Oregon was re- 
quired to sail 10,000 miles farther than would have been 
necessary if she could have crossed the isthmus, and now, 



u 



11 

witli the Iowa as a consort, she has startod on lier roinrn ti-ij) 
to the Pacific, and it is estimated that it will require some- 
thing; like three months for them to pass from our eastern 
to our western coast and reach their ilesiination. These 
lessons are amont; the imjiort.mt results of the wai*. With 
these results have come respon^il)ilities. These rcsiKjii- 
sibilities are the jirohlems uf the future. The jj;reat 
questions of the hour an- : W'hixi whall we do with Cuba? 
what shall we do with Porto Kico? and what particularly 
with the Philii)pines? So far as Cuba is concerned there 
should be no question whatever. The Cubans have earned 
their independence. We have solemidy declared not only 
that they are free and indei)endent , but that they shall have 
a fjovernment of their own choosing. We must keep our 
promise, and wl- will. 15nt this promise of independence 
to Cuba does not apjily to Porto Kico and the Philippines. 
We took tlie islands by conquest of war and they are ours 
to do with as we see fit. I do not kjjow what the treaty of 
peace now being prei)ared in Paris will jirovide, but I sin- 
cerely hope it will give to thf United States, not sinjply a 
coaling station or a single island, but the whole group of 
the Philipi)ine islands. I have no iVar of the ability of our 
people to successfully govern that people, and 1 feel that it 
would be nothing short of a crime to return them to the 
government of Spain. The people of those islands have 
been in revolt and revolution for years, fighting as they 
have been in Cuba to overthrow tyranny and oppression. 
We have been instrumental in liberating them. Wo must 
not return them to bondagi-. L'nder our protection and 
guidance they can have intelligence and prosperity, and we 
can have a base of operations in the far east highly essen- 
tial to the securing of our fair share of trade in China and 
the rest of the eastern world. We can scarcely imag- 
ine how important this is. In a few years Japan has 



15 

f^tepped to the front with a commerce that is rapidly in- 
creasing to the great advantage of all who trade with her. 

The possibilities in this respect in China are far greater 
than with Japan. Russia, Germany, France, England and 
all tlie great nations are struggling with each other for their 
lair share of the trade to be developed when China is opened 
up to communication and commerce with the rest of the 
woi-ld. The United States must also have her fair share in 
that trade. The great necessity of the immediate future 
for us is to find an outlet in the markets of the world for 
our sui-plus i)r()ducts, both of the field and the shop. Willi 
the Nicaragua canal constructi'd and the Hawaii islands 
midway on the road, and the Philippines as nearby posses- 
sions, we will have superior advantages over all others. 
One of the questions now pressing upon us is how to })ro- 
vide suitable gov(>rnments for these islands and to so govern 
and direct affairs as to ac(]uire the commerce to which we 
are entitled and secure the consequent prosperity to our 
people. Only that party should l)e intrusted with it that 
has shown itself most capable of tioaling with great affairs. 
Both in peace and in war the Republican party has proved 
equal to any emergency, and the record it has made is a 
guarantee that it will meet these j)roblems of the future and 
solve them with the same triumphant success that has at- 
tended it in all its brilliant career. 

I do not believe that any fair-minded Democrat would 
(juestion the fitness of the Republican party for the dis- 
charge of this duty. But, however it might be otherwise, 
the work is already in the hands of President McKinley. 
What he wants is the support of a Republican House of 
Representatives. It is the duty of Ohio to lend him this 
hel]). If we do our duty and come up to the full measure 
of our oi)portunities, there is ahead of us a career of use- 
fulness, of influence and of honor greater and grander than 
any language can depict. 



v? 



^x 



THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES TO ACQUIRE, HOLD, AND 

GOVERN TERRITORY. 



S P E E c n 



OF 



HON. J. B. FORAKER, 



OF OHIO, 



IN Till': 



SENATE OF THE UNFFED STATES, 



Wednesday, January ir, 1899. 



WASHINQXOM. 

1899. 



^^ 



<3 



SPEECH 



(H' 



HON. J. 15. FOK AKEU. 



ACQUISITION OF TEUKITOUY. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Tho Chair lays Ijefore the SenaJo the 
joint resolution iiitroihicod by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
VkstJ DccombtT C. is'js, on which tho Senator from Ohio [.Mr. 
Fohakkk] gave notice of hia desire to address the Senate this 
morning. 

The Skcretauy. A joint resolution (S. R. 101) declaring that 
nndor tl»o Constitution of the United States no powor is given to 
tho Fodoral (4overninont to ac<iuiio territory to be held and gov- 
erui'd jH rmaiiitif ly as colonies. 

Mr. I'UKAKEK. Mr. i'resident, there are two resolutions pend- 
ing before the S«'nato tliat have been very much di.scussed during 
tho last two or tliree weeks. Thoy are. staling them in the onlor 
in which they wore introduced as to time, Sonato joint rc.solutiou 
No. lit!, introdncod by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VliSTj on 
the 0th day of December, IbW, whicli reads as follows: 

A joint roRolution (S. R. 191) declarinK that uiulor th-3 Constitution of tho 

tjnitocl States no power is tjiven to tho Federal Itovornmcnt to nciiuiro 

territory to l>e liela and tcoverned iiornianently as colonics. 

Krstilnd hi/ thr ScUitIr inul l[i>\i.i- xf li'nrrsitildtirrs of tho Uiiitril States of 

Amirirtt in Ci»i(in:<m itssfinlilrd. That uinUT the (.'onstitution of the I'nited 

States ni power is fjiven to tho Federal Uoyorumout to acquire territory to 

be held and ni.vernrd ])ernmn<'ntly as culonies. 

The colonial system of Kuropean nations can not be e.«<tablished under our 
present Constitution, hut all territory .nctiuirod by the (iovernment, except; 
Buch small amount a.s may Ik* necessary for coaling stations, correction of 
boundaries, and similar Kovernmental jjurjioscs. must be acquired and (gov- 
erned with the jiurpose of ultimately organizing such territory into Stiiles 
suitable lor admission into the I'nioii. 

Tlio other resolution is the one introduced by the Senator from 
Illinois [Mr. M.vson], and reads as follows: 

Whereas all .iust powers of govcrament are derived from tho consent of 
the >;overned: Therefore, 1k> it 

h'.solrrd Inj tlif Stiinti' <J ll»- r»itril Sf'ttefi, That tho flovernment of the 
United States of America will not attempt to govern the people of any other 
country in the world without the consent of the people themselves, or sub- 
ject thera l)j' force to our dominion against their will. 

It will be observed that these resolutions raise distinctly differ- 
ent propo.sitious. Under the first resolution there is raised simply 
and solely a (|uestion nf constitutional power with respect to tho 
acquisition, the holding, and the government of territory. It has 
nothing to do whatsojver with policy. 

The (piestion raised by the second resolution has nothing what- 
ever to do with power, but raises a question simply of policy. 

I desire to speak briefly this morning as to both these questions 
and in the order in which 1 have thus called attcHtion to them. I 
say speak briefly, because in the debate which we have alre.uly had 
those <iuestions liave been (juito e.xhaustivoly discussed on both 
sides, both upon reason and authority by those who have precede<l 

3 



me. For that reason I shall omit to say many tliincrs which I 
shonld say nniler other circumstances in regard i)articularly at 
least to the first ot these qnestions. 

Speaking now as to the question of power, we were told by the 
Senator from IMassachusetts [Mr. Hoak| who spoko here a day or 
two ago that the question of power so raised by the resolution of 
the Senator from Missouri is the most important tiuestion that has 
ever been debated in this Chamber since tlie beginning of our 
Government. I do not agree with that statement. However im- 
portant this question may bo. I do not regard it as anything like 
so imj)ortant as were the great constitutional (questions wliich 
were debated in this Chamber by Mr. Webster. I do not regard 
this question as anytlnng like so important as were a number of 
questions which were debated here during the reconstruction 
period. 

I ^vill go further, Mr. President, and say. in answer to that 
statement of the Senator from Mas.sachusetts, that the precise 
question rai>ed by this resolution as to i)ower lias absolutely no 
importance whatsoever in a practical sense, and so far as a practical 
view of it i-; concerned we have not been debating a real but only 
a moot (luestiou. I say it has no practical importance, liecause 
the concessions of power to the General Government made by iho 
very terms of this resolution are gi-eater than anybody from the 
President down to the humblest of his followers has been propos- 
ing or is proposing to exercise. 

The resolution has Ix'en quite frequently read to the Senate, but 
no one has as yet stopped to analyze it. I desire to do so. 1 de- 
sire before doing so to call attention to the fact, as here conceded 
no doubt by all, that this resolution expresses the extremest view 
entertained to day by anybody in this country of a denial of a 
conqilete and uncjualitied .soverciLrn power in the General Govern- 
ment with respect to the acquisition and government of territory. 
When I read, therefore, and state by reading and analyzing the 
power that the Government is conceded by this resolution to have, 
you A\nll .see what wonderful progress on tliis subject has been 
made since the acquisition of the Louisiana purchase in 1803, 

At that time there were no precedents. Tlie power to acquire 
territory had never been exercised by the (rovernment. Uhere 
were no .judicial opinions to be cited as authority with respect to 
the constitutional power of the Government. Good men and wise 
men and patrioticmen differed as to tlie power of the Government 
at that time in this regard. They differed as to whether or not 
the Government could acquire territory at all constitutionally; 
they differed as to whether or not the Government had pov.'cr to 
govern it after the territory had been acqiiired. and thej' differed 
as to whether or not that territory should, after acquisition, be 
governed as a Territory, a province, or a dependency, or whether 
it could be constitutionally incorporated into the Union as a State. 

Mr. Jefferson himself had more troulde in his mind upon the 
question of the Government's right constitutionally to incorporate 
into the Union as a State the teri-itory acquired than he had upon 
the point of the Governments power to acquire territory. Such 
were the views entertained then, or rather such was the contrariety 
of views entertained then uv/on tuis proposition. 

Now, what does this resolution recite? It is what is called in 
law a negative pregnant. Let me read it again: 

That under the Constitution of the T'nitefl States no nower is given to tlio 
Federal Uoverninent to aciiuire territory to be Uelu and goverued per- 
maneutly as colonies. 

£631 



^r^- 



In other words, Mr. President, this resolutioia concedes that 
there is no longer any such questions as those which were debated 
and to which I have referred at the time of the actiuisition of the 
Louisiana jtnrchase. It is now conceded hy the very terms of this 
resolution that the Government has power to acquire territory, 
and upon the exercise of that power of acquisition no limitation 
whatever is placed by the language of this resolution. It may be 
acquired by purchase, by treaty, by cession, by discovery, or by 
conquest— in any of the ways that any other sovereign power of 
the earth can acquire territory. 

That is not all that this resolution concedes. It not only con- 
cedes that in any of the recognized ways for the acquisition of 
territory we may acquire territory, but it recognizes that we may 
ac(iuiro territory for the purpose of holding it and governing it as 
a colony, the only limitation placed upon the exercise of our power 
in that regard being that we shall not hold it permanently. You 
may actpiire it, you may hold it. you may govern it, you may gov- 
ern it as a colony, you may govern it for all time to come, savo 
and except only the last note of time. Until any point in the 
future, short only this side of eternity, you could hold it as a col- 
ony and govern it as a colony according to this resolution. 

Now. that being tiie concession of ihis resolution, 1 saj', Mr. 
President, that there is more power conceded to the General Gov- 
ernment to accjuire and hold and govern territory as a colony 
than anyone from the President down to his humblest supporter 
in his present policy in Ihis matter has sought or desired to exer- 
cise: and inasmuch as it concedes more power than anyone is 
seeking to exercise, I say it is a question of no practical importance 
whatever. 

But, Mr. President, in a theoretical sense this resolution raises 
a question that is of importance. The question raised ])y this res- 
olution, although one only of theory, in view of present circum- 
stances and conditions, is' nevertheless one which involves a dec- 
laration by this body, if we should pass this resolution, that our 
Government, one of the sovereign and independent powers of the 
earth, holds its place in the family of nations inferior to the other 
sovereign and independent governments of the earth. 

It is an elementary principle of international law, that you will 
find stated by evei-y writer upon international law. that each and 
every independent sovereign nation is equal to each and every 
other independent and sovereign nation of the earth— equal iu 
power, equal in duty, equal in right, equal in obligation. To 
adopt this resolution is for us to declare that our fathers, who 
framed our organic law, either unwittingly or intentionally 
brought forth a nation and gave it a place in the family of nations 
XI nequal, inferior in rank to the other sovereign and independent 
nations of the earth; and that, Mr. President, I am not willing to 
concede. 

Ah, but, say those who argue on the opposite side, our Consti- 
tution is an instrument of grant, and the Federal Government; 
has only such powers as are by that instrument delegated to it, and 
all other powers are by the tt'rms of the instrument reserved to 
the States tmd to the people of the States. That is true, Mr. Pres- 
ident. 1 take no issue with that proposition. I look, then, to see 
whether or not. in this instrument of grant, there is any confer- 
ring of power upon the General Governnaent with respect to the 
acquisition and government of ac(iuired territory, and to see 

3u31 



6 

whethtr .-i i..., if thoro l»o such grant of power, there bo also 
fomul any restriction or limitation upon its exorcise. 

I havo no difti ulty whatever in (iiulin>,' sticli k'rant, for I need 
not advert here to tlu- iact. r It iiuiitary. that it is an instrument 
that {grants not only hy e.\ i. hut nlso by implication. Wo 

find in this instrument a ;;r.iiii .1 power to t!j»«" I'ni ted States (iov- 
ernment to niaUe war. a ;,'rant of power to make treaties, each and 
1 ■ -yinKa' li U an<l with them thepoweral-otoacpiiro 

1' ^ . and. , lit of that, the power to j,'uvern territory. 

i nese pMw.rs to nutke war and to make treaties, Mr. President, 
have no rotrietinn or limitation whatsoever placed upon tlioir 
exercise in the Con.stitntion. Tiiey are absoUito and umiuali- 
fied. Our ': ■ !;ilit, tlierefore. to make 

war that an .1-. power wuuld have. It 

Would have that rigiit. Mr. i'resident, if the Constitution were 
silent uiKju the sul!-' for it is an inherent ri;,'ht, incident to 
every indeiK-ndent iity. to preserve its own life. But it is 

h' r.- \vi it any lestric- 

tioii. I jualitied right 

and ind authority to nuike war, and to do ovt'rything elne 

in th .ise of that power, that any other sovereign government 

has or can have. England can not nuike war with any more un- 
tiualilied power than can the I'nited States. 

So. to>, w1i<-n we come to the matter of making treaties. Tl)e 
power L to our (-lovernnu-nt by the Constitution of tlie 

United r is an uncjualitied, unrestricted power, and what- 
ever may bo the subject of treaty, or whatever may be retjuired 
by the fortunes of war when Condu<ted a<c<.rding T ' ' ,,( 
niti(»ns. we iiave a right to do. That was early . Iiy 

authority. If any authority Ije needed, let me cite wlmt i iiief 
Justice -Marshall saiil in the case of the American Insuram-e Com- 
pany vs. Canter, reported in 1 Peters, at page .ill. The first para- 
ijraph of •' llabusr ' ' " ^: 

Tl..(' ..' tV. ;:''.r 111,- .l.if,-1v ..II fin- r.,.vr.rn- 

<! :i(jr 

I'V coiiiiucai or l>> iic^iiy. 

The learned jurist states thai ; r..^„,sition without any qualifica- 
tion as to consent, as to whether or not the people occuiiying the 
territory, and who are thus bmught under our jurisdiction and 
laws, shall bo consulted by us ami .shall signify ilieir willingness 
to be governed by us before we can take jurisdiction. 

The iMjwer to make war and the power to make treaties are two 
powers conferred absolutely without <jualificatiori, each power 
carrying \yith it the power, as Chief Justice Marshall say-, to ac- 
quire territory. Then what does he .say as to the right to govern 
territory after it has been acijuired';' 

Mr. UK AY. I should like the Senator to read further from that 
case the .sentence of Chief .Justice Marshall in reference to the right 
to govern territory after it has been acquired, whether by treaty 
or oth'-rwiso. 

^Ir. FollAKER. I was just turning to it on page 542. After 
having discu.ssed and announced the proposition as the law of the 
land, that under both these powers we have the power to ac juire 
territory, and having a case before him which involved the dis- 
cussion of that subject, he then takes up the «|ue.stion of the right 
and authority and ])ower of the government tliat has acquired to 
g.-vrnthe territory that has Ixfcu acquired. 1 might read with 



/ 



interr-Bt a great deal that is said here, but I do not wish to un- 
necessarily trespass ui.on the time of the Senate. I therefore con- 
tent myself with saying- that at page 542 Chief Justice Marshall, 
after speaking of the constitutional power expressly conferred on 
the Congress to govern, says: 

Tlu- rieht to irovorn mny U- the inevitable conseqnenco of the rlBht to ac- 
nuire tc" ritorv Whirh.-vor may Ik. the source whence tho power is derived, 
till- possession" of it is lUKiuostiuiied. 

Mr BACON. Will the Senator permit me to ask what particu- 
lar territory was under consideration in the deliverance of that 

*^^'Mr° FORAKER. Florida. If there is any imp..rtanco to bo 
attached to tliat. I wish the Senator wculd st:itc it. I do not 
know th.it tho ca«e dilTers frcrn any other because it was the ter- 

rit'irv ot Florida. 

Mr liA<()N. A.s the Senator invites me , 

Mr F( )K VKEK. It was formerly ttie t rntory of Spam. 
Mr BVCON. As the Senator invitee m.'— I would n.totlior- 
wise trespa.s8 upon him-1 will state that I think the distinrtiuniH 
very cl.ar between the ac(iuisition of contigU(.ns t.;rritt)ry. wliero 
there is every pmsnect th.it wc can mak.- its inhabitants a part ot 
our homo.'ene!.us papulation, and th- case of far-di>tant countries, 

which can never l)e peopled by a people homogeneous with our 

'^'^V/r V( )H \KFR Mr. Prrsident. I am u'lad I invited the Sena- 
tor from ( J.'orgiu to expr.-s why he thought there was a clear dis- 
tinction between the law applicable-for that is what we arc talk- 
ing about-to the aciuisitiou of Florida and other territory. 

Mr B\C()N If the Senator will jiardon me. I simply meant, 
inVailin'" attention to it. to remind the Senator of the well-known 
rule that'in weiu'hing tlie lam;ua-eof the court tho circumstances 
of the particular case and the particular issue then before the court 
must always be consider.tl. , ^ -,r t^ i f t 

Mr F( )R AKER. Certainly, that is true: but. Mr. President I 
revert to the fact that the Chief Justice here, in announcing the 
opinion not only f..r himself but for the whole court, has laid it, 
dinvn as a proposition, without any .pialihcation whatever, that 
the (Government has the constitutional power to ac(iuire territory 
under either the treaty-making or the war-making power .aiKlsp^alv^ 
of that as an absolute power, not .lependeut on whether territi.ry is 
contiguous to us or remote in far distant seas, not stopping to con- 
sider or distinguish betwe.n territory lying in the Tropics or terri- 
tory that may be located in the temperate zones or e sewhere. 

Mr. GRAY. That is a «iuestion of power and the other is a 

question of pidicy. . , t i.i „4-i,„,. ;o 

Mr FOR AKER. One is a question of power and the othei is 
a question of policy. I can understand how, when the question 
of power has been rightfully settled in favor of the Government^ 
we might have a difference of opinion in a given case as to whetlie. 
or not the policy of annexing a particular territory was a wise 
policy What lam contending for .iust now is the power ot tlio 
Govei-nment, without any (lualification whatever, to annex, either 
by treaty or by war, any territory, anywhere on the face of the globe 
that any other independent sovereignty could annex by war or by- 
treaty. " In other words. Mr. President. I am trying to assert that 
our fathers did not make a constitutional government inferior in 
rank and power in this respect to any other independent sovei- 
eignty of the earth. 
L631 



8 

Tlie case of The Insnranoe Company rs. Canter was one of the 
earlii'stantliorities. Thire wore some cases before, ami tliere liavo 
lieen a ^reat many since, to tlie same effect. 1 shall content myself, 
however, with callini? attention to only one otiier, and that is the 
case of The Mormon Church rs. The United States, found in i:JG 
United States Reports, heinnnin^ at pa^e 1. I read from the 
opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, at jkilco IJ. Btojjpin^' first to say 
only this: That in this opinion Mr. Justice Uradli'y reviews, witli 
bis accu.';toiucd ability, clearness, and force, all the authorities on 
the qm'stion preceding the announcement of his opinion. Now, 
speaking of bi ith the power to acijuire territory and of the authority 
and power of Congress to govern that territory when it has been 
acfiuired, he says: 

The power of ( '■ .iiL'r«"5< nvr-r flio Torritorios of tlio United States I.«t pronoral 
niifl pU'imry. ari .'loiital to tlio rinht to acquir«! tlio territory 

itsH'll tin<i tr"'ii I Ity tho Constitution to iniiko all Ti.-clr'til 

ruleH ami !•■ tln> teri-itory or otlivr proi'ortv I 

totlicriiit. • niiHiipl to hold tliat tlif> Uiiitoi'i ^- 

powor t n it wlii-ii ai'(juin'j. i no 

iMiwor ; ry iiorttiwi'st of tlio Oliio 

iiver V \i !■" "1 I' 1 II.- ailujitioii of tljo < 'oiistitu- 

tion> ia dorivi'il r aii<i the 1)o\v<t todeilare ami 

carry on war. '] , . ;.-. nro thu!M) of national sovcr- 

eijruty and l>elong to all independent Kovernnit-ntn. 

I might read much more with e(iual interest and equally to tho 
point, but I have read enough, Mr. President, to show that by one 
of the latest decisions, and with one of the ablest justices who has 
ever sat upon that bencli speaking for the court, it has been held, 
just as it was held by Mr. Justice Marshall in the case of Canter, 
that this Government lias the power, under both the war-making 
power and the treaty-making power, to ac(|uire territory, and that 
when the territory has been a«c(iui red. theCiovernment has a right 
to govern it. first, as a result of tht- riglit to ac(iuire, for it woidd 
be absurd, says Mr. Justice Bradley, to hold that tlie (iovernment 
may acquire territory an<l then have no authority or power to gov- 
ern it: and in the si-cond place, the Congress has authority to gov- 
ern the territory by virtue of section o, Aa-ticle IV, of the Constitu- 
tion, which provides that — 

The I -hall have jwwer to di.spose of and make all needful rules and 

regulu;. cctinij the territory or other proper tv belon^iuij to the United 

State.-^. 

Mr. President, snch being the authorities on the subject, what 
are the grounds upon which this resolution has been supported \)y 
those who have spoken? First in order we have the speech of tho 
author of the resolution, the Senator from Mis.souri [Mr. Vest]. 
As I understaud his speech — I was not i)re.sent in the Chamber, 
very much to my regret, when he spoke, for I always delight to 
hear him— but as I understand his speech, after a very careful 
reading of it, he has three main propositions he insists upon in 
support of his resolution. 

In the first place, he tells us that there is a historical argument 
in favor of what he declares for by his propo.sition; a historiral 
argument against this Government holding colonies and govern- 
ing them as such. Then he tells us that our fathers rebelled 
against England, and that the war waged by them was for tho 
purpose of destrojing the colonial system, and that the circura- 
Btances were such that it can not be reasonably assumed or be- 
lieved that they could have contemplated, after having themselves 
broken away from the colonial .system, a continuation of it, and 
that they could not have created a government and invested it 
with power to continue colonial governments. 



/ 



Mr. President, it seems to me that when we recall the facts 
attending the inception of the war of the Revolution, the nature 
of it in its beginning;, and how it was suhse'iueutlv changed to a 
different purpose, we have one of the slrongt-.st possible arguments 
to the efifect tliat there was at least no prejudice in the minds of 
the fathers against the colonial system of government. Take the 
Declaration of Independence, which has so f re-juentl y been alluded 
to in these debates in the last two or three days, and read the reci- 
tation of grievances there set forth by the f raniers of that document. 

You will not find tliere any complaint agaiust the colonial sys- 
tem of government. You tind there only a recitation of wrongs 
and grievances and outrages and tyrannies, as they are cliarac- 
terized. which tiie people of the colonies had suffered at the hands 
of the British ministry, and their sole pun^ose, as they claimed 
over and over again, botli before the war and for nearly a year 
after the war commenced, was, not to secure independence, but 
simply to redress the wrongs and grievances to which they had 
been subjected by the mother country. There was no complaint 
about the colonial svslem proper. 

But, Mr. President, saying nothing more in answer to that sug- 
gestion than that wehavr, as it seems to me. in the facts a nega- 
tive of the proposition as I understand it was made by the Sen- 
ator from ]\Iis30uj-i in that respect, I call attention to another 
matter which it seems to mo is sufficient of itself to conclusively 
show that the fathers who framed our Government not only were 
not seeking to establish a government that could not continue 
the colonial system of government, but that they had in view as 
one of the express ilurposes of that government the acquisition of 
colonies and the government of them at will as colonies. 

In a letter written by Gouverneur ^lorris, which has already 
been adverted to by the Senator from Connecticut [:\Ir. Platt | 
in his very able speech delivered a few days ago, to Henry W, 
Livingston, dated November '2."i, 1SU3. and written in answer to 
an inriuiry as to the power of the Government under the Consti- 
tution to aciiuire territory and the power of the Congress after 
acquisition to govern it, he wrote what I shall presently read. I 
should sav th.it he was the author of that clause in section 3 of 
Article IV of the Constitution which confers upon Congress the 
power to prescribe rules and regulations for the government of 
the TeiTitories. and being the author of it. certainly he ought to 
know what was intended by it when offered by him and adopted 
by the Convention. 

He says: 

I am vory certain that I bad it not in contemplation to insort a decree do 
coorreudo "imperio in the Constitution of Americ-a. Witliout examining 
whether a limitation of territory bo or br> not essential to the preservation 
of republican frovernraent, I am certain that the country between the Mis- 
sis.sippi and the Atlantic exceeds bv far the limits which prudence would 
a-ssi^n, if in effect any limitation bo required. Another reason of equal 
weight must have prevented me from thinkinfr of su<'h a clause. I knew as 
well then as I do now that all North America must at length be aunexea to 
us. Ilnppy. indeed, if the lust of dominion stop there. 

A few days later, on the Itli of December, 1803, he wrote to 
Mr. Livingston again, as follows: 

Dr.AR Slit: A circumstance which turned up in conver.sation yesterday 
has led mo again to read over your letter of the M of November and my 
answer of the :isth. I perceive now that I mistook the drift of your imiuiry, 
which is substantially whetlier Congress can admit as a new State territory 
which did not belong to the Cnited States when the (.Constitution was made. 

That is the identical question pbout which Mr. Jefferson had 
his chief trouble, whether or not after he had acquired territory 

3831 



10 

he could a«liHit that territory at any time in tlie future into state- 
hood. Mr. Morris says: 

Now I observe that is the point of your inquiry. 

How does he answer it? 

In my oiiinion, they can not. 

Here is one of the framers of tlio Constitution of the United 
States sayin^,' tliat the unquestioned jjower to acquire territory 
i-ould not" be exercised with a view to incoriiorating that territory 
when ac(iuired into the Union as States at all. What further 
dues he sayV He speaks ne.vt of this clause of section :!, Article 
IV, of the Constitution investing Congress with tiie power to 
govern territory when ac(iuirod. and says: 

I always thoujflit tlint wlit-n wo should ai'i|uiro Canada and Louisiana it 
would be i»roi>er to govern them as i)rovinceH and all>jw them no voice in our 
couneils. 

Mr. FRYE. He differs with the Senator from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Hnuc). 

Mr. FoiiAKER. There is a marked dilTerence between the 
fiiimer of tlie roiistitution and tlie interjjreter of it. 

Mr. liL'TLER. Will the .Senator Irum Ohio pardon me for a 
m imeiitV 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. BCTLKR. Does not Gouverneur Morris in the same letter 
state that wliile that was his view and desire, yet the language of 
the Constitution did not go tliat far? Did he not admit that he 
did not dare to j)ut that sentiment in expr.'ss words for fear the 
constitutional convention would vote it down? 

Mr. FORAKER. It is hardly tliat strong. He does say that ho 
thought there would be opposition to it. He does not say he 
believed it Would have been voted down, as I remember it. 1 will 
read all of his letter with pleasure. 1 fltoppod only that I might 
save time. He says: 

In wording the third section of the fourth arti<lo I went as far as circuin- 
btnnces would p rmit to establish the exi-lusi<jn. 

To exclude territory from statehood. 

Candor oblij:es me to mid my beli.-f had it been more pointedly expressed 
a strong opposition would have bL-en made. 

That is all. 

Mr. B13TLER. Gouverneur Morris was on the committee on 
style to dre.ss up the phraseology of theConstituti(m. and here and 
there made interpolati<ms. after the convention had done its work, 
section by section and sentence by sentence. This was one of his 
pieces of style, and he admits himself that he veiled his language 
and that his purpose was not clear to those who accepted it. 

:Mr. F( )RAKER. I was not aware that he ever made any such 
admission. I am aware that he is accre lited with being the author 
of the third section of the fourth article, and nobody else has ever 
been credited with it. 

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mav I interrupt the Senator from 

Ohio? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. , ^ ,^.^. , 

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I wish to throw a little additional 

li"ht on the views of the men who were contemporaneous with 

the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin has always been under- 

Btood to know something about the Declaration of Independeiu-e, 

inasmuch as he was one of the committee of five appointed by the 

3«:J1 



/ ^ 



11 

Constitutional Convention to draft tlie same. Benjamin Frank- 
lin, two years afterwards, was sent by the Continental Congress 
to France to make the treaty of alliance with France, the first 
treaty we made with France. " In the fifth article of that treaty, 
nej?otiated and signed by Benjamin Franklin, is to be found the 
following: 

If the United States shoultl think fit to attempt the reduction of the British 
power romaininp in the northern jiarts of America or the islands of Bernin- 
das. those countrieH or islands, in case of success, shall be confederated with 
or dependent upon the stiid L'nited States. 

Benjamin Franklin negotiated the treaty with that provision 
in it. 

I\Ir. FORAKER. He does not say anything about consent 
either. 

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. No. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator to that extent considers that Benja- 
min Franklin diil not conform in all particulars to the declarations 
in the Declaration uf Independence. 

Mr. FORAKER. That ho was not tlie epiahin knowledge of 
the Constitution and knowledge of our inotituti9ns, of Senators 
who are here interpreting tliose documents. 

Wliat I wanted to say. before I left the letters of Gouverncur 
INIorris. in ;inswer to what was suggested by the Senator from 
North Carolina, is that, liowcver the fact may be as to (Touverneur 
Morris being tin- chairman of the committee on revision and tak- 
ing liberties With the Constitution by inserting language that im- 
pro\ed tht." phrases, yet tlie fact remains that he was a member of 
the Constitutional Convention. He was there and helped to make 
the Constitution, and I would rather take his interpretation of tho 
instrument they framed on a controverted point of this kind than 
to take the interpretation not supported by authority, but only by 
such reason as can be advanced, of anyone who stands here to in- 
terpret that document now. 

i\lr. BUTLER. Will the Senator from Ohio pardon me? Gouv- 
erncur Morris's letter is really a confession that the convention did 
not understand his language as he meant it. 

Mr. FORAKER. So be it. There is his language. He seems 
to have got in his work anyhow. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ALLEN. I should "like to ask the Senator from Ohio a 
question. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator from Nebraska will pardon mo 
for just a moment, I will yield. The language employed by 
Gouverneur jNIorris has Ijeen held sufficient by Chief Justice IMar- 
shall and by the Supreme Court, without exception, every time that 
(juestion has been before that tribunal, to confer tijjon the Govern- 
ment the power intended by Gouverneur Morris to be conferred, 
namely, the power to govern territory that might be acquired. 

Mr. ALLEN. The Senator from Ohio a moment ago was dis- 
cussing ([uite an important (piestion, in my judgment, which he 
did not discuss fully. The Senator said— and in that I agree witli 
him— that we could ac(iuire territory through the war power or 
as an incident of the war-making power. Does the Senator hold 
that by virtue of our reducing tlie Philippine Archipelago to our 
jurisdiction it is ip.so facto attached to the United States? 

Mr. FORAKER. If tho Senator will pardon me, I will get to 
the Philippines after a while. Tliis is a great war and coiiipre- 
h"nds the whole world and all the principalities thereof. I will, 
in order, get to the point the Senator suggests, 
•Mil 



r 



12 

Mr. ALLEN. I understood the Senator to say, in discussing 
Mr. Justice Bradley's opinion, that we did aciuire territory, and 
that it did become annexed ipso facto by reason of its capture and 
reduction under the war power. In other words, does it require 
anything more than a mere capture of territory to annex it to the 
United States? 

Mr. FORAKER. I suppose it would depend somewhat upon 
the provisions of the treaty of peace that might be concluded. If 
in the provisions of the treaty of peace it should be provided that 
certain designated territory which had been taken by conquest 
should be ceded, or if it should be provided that certain designated 
territory that had not been conquered should be ceded as indem- 
nity, for instance, the title of this Government would be com- 
plete if we took it. 

Mr. ALLEN. Then it requires more than a mere reduction in 
the case of war to annex territory. Another question, with the 
Senator's permission. If we reduce territory to our jurisdiction 
and annex it, do not the provisions of the Constitution immediately 
extend over that territory? 

Mr. FORAKER. Well. I do not think so, except in a qualified 

6GliS6 

Mr.' ALLEN. And are not the people, under the fourteenth and 
fifteenth amendments to the Constitution, entitled to citizenship 
by virtue of our obtaining the territory? 

"Mr. FORAKER. I do not think the Constitution extends in the 
sense in which the Senator suggests. 

Mr. ALLEN. I beg to say that the Supreme Court has held that 
it does. 

Mr. GRAY. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me to answer 
the question of the Senator from Nebraska out of the mouth of 
Chief Justice Marshall? 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes. 

Mr. GRAY. In the case referred to by the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Ohio. Canter vs. Insurance Company, Chief Justice Mar- 
shall says, after the statement already recited by the Senator: 

The iisage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider 
the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occuijation until its 
fate shall be determined at a treaty of peace. 

Mr. TELLER. With the permission of the Senator from Ohio, 
I should like to read what Daniel Webster said in the argument 
of the case on this question: 

What is Florida? It is no part of the United States. How can it be? How 
is it represented? Do the laws of the United States reach Florida? Not un- 
less by particular provisions. . . 

The territory and all within it are governed by the acquirmg power, ex- 
cept where there are reservations by treaty. 

By the law of England, when possession is taken of territories, the King, 
Jure corouaj. has the power of legislation until Parliament shall interfere. 
Congress have the jus coronre in this case, and Florida was to be governed 
by Congress as she thought proper. . ■, , , 

' What has Congress done? She might have done anything— she might have 
refused the trial by jurv, and refus--d a legislature. She has given a legis- 
lature, to be exercised at her wilL and a government of a mixed nature, m 
which she has endeavored to distinguish between State and United States 
jurisdiction, anticipating the future erection of the Territory into a State. 

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me right here, 
and I will not interrupt him any more? Does the Senator from 
Colorado hold that the provisions of the Constitution do not ex- 
tend to Arizona and New Mexico? 
2631 






Mr. TELLER. They do not extend to Arizona unless we ex- 
tend them by law. No public man in this country, save Mr. 
Calhoun, ever insisted that the Constitution of the coiintry went 
by its own force into a Territory. 

Mr. ALLEN. Do not the provisions of the Constitution extend 
now to the Hawaiian Islands? 

Mr. TELLER. They extend there if it is provided by law that 
they shall; not otherwise. 

Mr. ALLEN. What does the Senator say about the fifteenth 
amendment? 

Mr. TELLER. I say the Constitution has no power to extend 
itself into the new territories unless Congress shall so declare. 
That is the doctrine which the Supreme Coiirt have repeatedly 
enunciated. 

Mr. ALLEN. Then 

Mr. TELLER. I will not discuss the question while the Sena- 
tor from Ohio is making a speech. 

Mr. ALLEN. One moment. I shall not prolong the discussion. 
I submit that Congress has never declared the Constitution to ex- 
tend to any State or Territory outside of the original thirteen 
States, and if the Senator's position is true the Constitution ex- 
tends only to the thirteen States. 

Mr. TELLER. The Supreme Court has said that when a State 
is admitted the Constitution takes effect without declaration. 

Mr. ALLEN. The Supreme Court has held that it extended 
over the Territories. 

Mr. TELLER. Never. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not wish to be diverted from the argu- 
ment in the midst of which I was, but I will pause just a moment 
to say, in answer to the Senator from Nebraska, in order that I 
may answer him as well as the Senator from Colorado, that we 
by act of Congress in every instance where territory is acquired 
declare that the Constitution shall be extended, and then by act 
of Congress we provide legislation that will set the principles of 
the Constitution in motion in that territory. In other words, the 
Constitution does not proprio vigore extend into and operate in 
the territory: but when the legislative machinery has been sup- 
plied it then does operate there, and not until then. And in the 
Hawaiian bill now pending before the Senate, as suggested by the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge] , that identical clause is 
to be found. 

Now, of course, when v/e sit here to legislate for the Territories 
that belong to the United States, we are governed and restricted 
and limited by the provisions of the Constitution, and we could 
not faithfully keep our oaths and provide laws that would deny 
any of the constitutional immunities and privileges to citizens in 
the Territories that are guaranteed by the bill of rights. 

Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me to ask 
him a question? 

Mr. FORAKER. I wish to put in one other authority, if the 
Senator will excuse me for a moment. It is handed to me by the 
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] . It is found in the eighty- 
sixth volume of the Federal Reporter, page 456, and is the case of 
Endelman et al. rs. The United States. "l read from the second 
paragraph of the syllabus. Ninth circuit court of appeals: 

Congress has full legislative power over the Ter ritorles, unrestricted by the 
limitations of the Constitution. 

3631 



7 



11 

I have not examined the case. I tlo not know what the court 
Bays in the opinion. 1-ut it seems to be quite applicable to the point 
now uniltT consideration. 

I wish to pass now to a further answer to the argument made 
l)y the Senator from Missouri, but 1 pause for the question of the 
Senator from South Carolina. 

Mr. TILLMAN. The cpu'stiou I wish to ask the Senator was 

euggesttd bv his arL,'uiiK'nt. audit is thi-;: Has C'<aigress tlie right 

to force Icgislai ion on a State wliich does not apply to a Territory? 

Mr. F( HiAKER. To fore legislation on a Stab'? 

Mr. TILLMAN. Yes; on tin- States as a whole, that does not 

apply to a Ti-rritorv inimodiab'ly? 

Mr. FORAKER.' If it should be an interstate-commerce law, 
or something of a similar nature, I should tiiink Congress would 
have the i)ower. But of coursi- the government of the Territories 
is remittel expressly to tlie Congress. It provides the domestic 
legislati'in of the Territ )ries. It takes tlie i>la<e. in relation to a 
Territory, that the State legislature holds in relation to a State. 

Mr. Ti'LLMAN. What about the cjuestion of sulTrage? There 
are n > citizens of the United States with the right to vote, as we 
understand it. according to the Supreme Court decision. 

Mr. KORAKER. That is very true. Do you want the Filipmos 
to vote? 

Mr. TILLMAN. Yet we are not agreed, at least, as to the con- 
dition of suffrage in the various States. 1 should like the Senator 
not to forget that proposition before he gets through. 

Mr. FORAKER. That j^roposition is not germane to what I 
am talking about, but 1 have no liesitation in saying, in answer to 
the Senator, that the States, and the States alone, confer the right 
to vote, subject to the constitutional limitations, of course. Tlio 
State legislatures liave no ])ower beyond the State .iurisdiction. 
Tliere is no Territorial legislature unless Cc^igress should create 
one. Congress deals witli" the Territories as the Ccjiigre.ss may see 
fit. It mav ])rovide that the Territories shall liave a legislature 
or it may directly legislate fur the Territories from Washington. 
Whatever the Congress may see fit to do in that behalf or what- 
ever the Territorial legislature may do under the jjower delegated 
to it would be controlling in the matter of suffrage. 

Mr. TILL^LVN. ^Vould a Tenit<n-y, then, have the right to be 
admitted as a State if there were discriminations on account of 
race or previous condition? 

Mr. f ORAKER. That is a question we will discuss when it 
comes up. I wish some of the States which do discriminate were 
outside applying to get in, that we might have a trial of that ques- 
tion. [Laughter.] . . , 

:Mr. TILLMAN. The Senator's wish as to the situation does not 
change the legal argument, though. He is dodging, if he \yill ex- 
cuse me— I do not think he ever willingly dodges— the legal proj)- 
osition which 1 asked him to elucidate, and that is the power of 
Congress to legislate for a State differently from a Territory, and 
vice versa. . , , , 

Mr. FORAKER. Unless Congress sees fit so to provide, nobody 
can vote in a Territory. The whole subject with respect to a 
Territory is in the hands of Congress to legislate about as Con- 
gress may see fit. having reference to local conditions, and, of 
course, being governed by the limitations of the Constitution in 
regard to those principles pertaining to personal liberty and per- 

-GJl 



XvT 



15 

sonal rights that are spoken of in the Bill of Rights. When it 
comes to the admission of a Territory as a State into the Union, 
Congress has to vote whether or not the State shall be admitted; 
and when the State comes with a constitution that is consonant 
with the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the 
United States, and the other conditions are favorable. Congress 
may say to the State, " Come in." or Congress may sa}' to the State, 
"■Stay out." In other words, when it becomes a State, it is for 
the State to say, as it has been held, whether or not this, that, or 
the other individual shall vote, sub.iect always, of course, to the 
restrictions found in tht; constitutional amen<liuents. 

Mr. TILKMAN. If the Senator will pardon me. I do not like to 
interrupt him, but 1 simply wish to emphasize tlie diii'creuce which 
he seeks to prove here exists between the States and the Terri- 
tories, which we deny exists. We assert that you can not di.s- 
criminate between a State and a Territory in legislation or in 
constitutional conditions: and when we incorporate any additional 
territory, by treat}- or by concpiest or otherwise, the Constitutiou 
must control those people the same as it does those living iu the 
States and the Territories now in the Union. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not tiiink the Senator will insist, when 
hf« reads the Rkcord and sees what his inquiries have been and 
what my aiiswers have been, that I have evaded any question he 
has asked me. I have undertaken to answer according to the 
understanding I got of the (luestions he put. Different States 
legislate differently. South Carolina has one law of elections and 
oiiiu has another. They may be very similar or very dissimilar, 
and as it is competent for the different State legislatures to enact 
different State laws governing elections, so, too, is.it competent 
for Congress, in the exercise of its jiower over the Teiritories, to 
say one thing as to an election in one Territory' and a different 
thing as to an election in another Territorj', subject always, as I 
say, to the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Constitu- 
tion as to personal rig;hts. 

Now. Mr. President, if I may proceed, I wish to call attention, 
in the next place, to the fact that the Senator from Missouri has 
predicated his second argument upon the Dred Scott decision. 

Mr. BACOX. If the Senator will permit me, as he is passing 
from this particular ])oint. I ask his permission to interrtipt him 
for a moment in order that I may set myself right. The Senator, 
at the suggestion of the Senator from Connecticut, invoked the 
treaty between the United States and France as giving exi^ression 
to the ojiinion of Franklin on the clause of the Constitution 

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I read it. 

Mr. BACON. I am speaking of what the Senator from Ohio 
did. 

Mr. FORAKER. I did not read it. 

Mr. BACON. The Senator from Ohio used it as a contempo- 
raneous construction by < me who was a participant in the framing 
of tlie Constitution; what was understood then. 

]Mr. FORAKER. The Senator from Georgia misunderstood 
the Sc'uator from Ohio. The Senator from Oliio was talking 
about Goiiverneur Morris and not about Benjamin Franklin. 

Mr. BACON. I beg the Senator's pardon. Tlie interruption 
which I took the liberty to make was with reference to the particu- 
lar thing upon which the Senator was then commejiting— the ut- 
terance of Benjamin Franklin as expressed in the treaty which 
he negotiated and which he signed. 



7 



16 

Mr. FORAKER. The Senator from Ohio has not commonted 
ui><in any nttcrance of Benjamin rranklin. 

Mr. BACON. However that may he. I wisli to state in this 
connection that the treaty was maile in 1778, nine years before the 
Constitution of the United States was framed. 

Mr. I'LATT of Connecticut. I stated that it was made within 
two years after tlie Uechiration of Indt-iuMulence, and I read it for 
the purpose of showing that one of tJie iiutliors of tln' Dtclaration 
negotiated it. I suppose he knew something as to wliat the Dec- 
laration of Indei)ondence meant. If he liad lived to this day, ho 
Would have founil that in tlie minds of sumo Senators he did not 
know what the Declaration of Independence meant, ftnd was vio- 
hiting it. (Lau,:,diter. ) 

Mr. FORAKliU. I will l)e obliged, much as I enjoy interrup- 
tions, if Senators will rdlow me to prm-eeil. for I do not wish to 
take the time of the Senate umluly, and yet 1 should like to con- 
clude what I have had it m niiiul to K;iy, 

I was just jirocerdiug to consider the second argument advanced 
by the Senator from Mis-ouri in support of his resolution. It is 
ba.sed upon the Dred Scott decision. One i)aragraiih of the syl- 
labus in that case rea^ls as follows, and tlie hin;,'iiagi- is so simihir 
to that employed by the Senator fn»m Missouri liiat he mustliave 
had this language before him. anil jirolialdy did. when he drew 
that resolution. It says: 

Tho l": ' ■ ■■ ' under till- I'Ti'si'iit I .,ii-.titiitiMii, laii iiiit iiiiiunt- t'lTi- 
tory to l>. lony. to Ix- >;uv«tii<'<1 at its will and jil"-asur<-. Hut it 

ni:iy uc<nin . ;iii;..i> wliirli ;■• ' ' ' mh* hru-i ii<>t a |i<i|inlatiiiii tliat tits it to 
lii-cnmf a Stjtti'. and may kl>V' ' 'r<'rrit<iry until it lias a |H>|iiilatioii 

wliirli, ill the judguifUt ut Cui.,,. . alitles it tu bo udmittud lut u .State of 
the Union. 

. The part which I say he must have followed almost literally is 
the declaration that the (iovernment of tlu; Unit«'d States has no 
constitutional powt-r to arquirt- territory to be held and governed 
as a colony at will. Tluit means peruianentiy, I suppo.se. 

I would not stop, Mr. President, to answer the argument that 
is based upon this decision, and particularly up(jn this clan.se in 
the decision, were it not that the Senator from Missouri, after 
quoting from Mr. Chief Justice Taney s opinion upon this point, 
said: 

Mr. President, I have stated that tlie nine juMtices of the Supremo Court 
aeqniesrcd in that portion of the Ured S<-..ff r.i.ini.in. and I aswrt now, and 
fliaIli-ni;econtradiction. that not orn" tribu; il nor ."state, and not one 

pulili".' man of ( Tninnnce in this coiintrv. h i ' ■ntnidictcd that portion 

of the Ured .s ~ion until \vr iii.-<i mx months, wht-n the crazo 

of expansion have taken i n of a largo portion of the Ameri- 

ean l>eol)Ie. 

Mr. President, I have not the time to take the opinions of the 
nine justices of the Supreme Court, for each gave an opinion in 
that case, and review them at length and in detail to show that 
the Senator from Mi.ssouri is mistaken when he says that the nine 
justices of the Supreme Court in that rase concurred in this projio- 
sition; but I state it as confidently as his statement has l>-en made, 
without fear of successful contradiction, that instead of the nine 
justices of the Supreme Court of the United States agreeing to 
that proposition, only one associate justice, Mr. Justice Wayne, 
agreed to it. 

Look through the language employed in the respective opinions 
and you will find that not another ju.stice touched upon that i)rop- 
osition in any way or form. <ind why? It was not necessary for 
the decision of the case. That, Mr. President, was a political 

JG31 



/ 



17 

case, and the decision was a political decision. It was a fight, a 
battle to the finish, in the coir. est l-etween slavery and freedom, 
and the justices found after the first argument of the ca.se that 
they were so unable to agi-ee among themselves that no one could 
write an opinion for the court that they would agree might be 
read by the court as the courts opinion, and on their own motion 
a rearguuunt w.is ordered, and after that reargumeut they had 
the same difficulty. 

No justice could prepare an opinion which a majority would 
accept and allow to bo read as the opinion of the court; and after 
they became lully aware of that difficulty and situation, it was 
tlun by the justices agreed that each member of the court should 
write his own opinion, and the court would cont?nt ilself with an 
agreement of a majority of tlie members upon the judgment that 
was to be rendered. Some of the justices confined themselves to 
the (luestion before the court, which was wh>ther or not a slave, 
bcnig carried out of a slave State into a free State or a free Terri- 
tory, became, by ojieration of the law prohiljiting slavery upon him 
in this free Territory, a free man. and if so, when taken back into 
a slave State his quality of a slave reattached. 

Some, I say, confined themsilves to that proposition, but the 
great political o])jeft and purpose of the decision was to overthrow 
and destroy the Missouri compromise act of IS'iO, and inasmuch 
as Dred Scott had lived within a Territory that was being gov- 
erned by Congress, where Congress had prohibited slav(>ry, they 
went on to decide the (juestion whether or not Congress had power 
to govern territory. Th(\v hail to concede that the Government 
had power to aciiuire it. and did, in any of the ways that I have 
mentioned, but when it came to the (fuestion of Congressional 
power to govern they considered first whether or not the Congress 
had power under the third section of the fourth article to govern 
the particular tevri;ory then in question, and held that Congress 
had not, by holding that the territory mentioned in the Con.stitution 
as subject to be governed by Congress was territory owned by 
the Government at the time when the Constitution was adopted 
and not territory thereafter acquired. 

Then, said Mr. Justice Curtis ami Mr. Justice IVIcLean. if that 
be true, if it be true that Congress has no constitutional iiower by 
virtue of that section or clause to legislate for the territories 
ac'iuired since the Constitution was adopt >d. still Congress has 
power, as was held by ]Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the Canter 
case, from which I read a moment ago. and as in many other 
cases it was held, to govern territory that had been subsequently 
acquired, because of the inherent power that attended the acqui- 
sition of territory: it being absurd, as Mr. Justice Bradley said, to 
concede that the Government has power to acquire territory and 
no power to govern it after it has been acquired. 

Then Chief Justice Taney and his associates went to the extent of 
flaying, and that is how that case reached a conclusion, that Con- 
gress did have the power to govern territory that had been ac- 
quired subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution, but that in 
governing that territory so acquired \inder this inherent constitu- 
tional power, as contradistinguished from the expressed power, 
Congress must .so govern the territory as to give all the citizens of 
{ill the States equal rights and privileges and protection in the 
territory, not only for themselves, but for their prouertv. without 
regard to the kind of property it might be, and therefore when 
ati3i-2 



18 

CougTt'ss Imd jjroliibited th" (alcinc: of slnvo property into the ter- 
ritory tlioy hiid imj) >8t'il a (li-L-riiniiuitii)ii nj)on the owner of 
sljivos in tlu' ^hive Statt'S that \h<> owner of ]iro|)erty in the free 
States was nut Hubjected to. Tla* one could lake his horses, but 
the other could not take his slaves. 

I say none of tiie<o (lucstions were necessary, but nil of them 
wt-n- reacheil in tln' way I have brioHy unih'rtaken to iuflicate, and 
1 indicate it in ordir tliat I may say, wiiat 1 said a niinnte af?o, 
that this w.r-- a -tni;;;;l<' in thf coiirls to si-ttlo the questions of 
slavery or f i witli resi.eet to the Territories. 

And it w.i- ... idx-rately. >Ir. Pn-sidont, n>;reed, upon the sug- 
■ tion of Mr. .Instice Wayne, that when tliey found tin jnn-lves 

nld nil' ■ ' lH<yond 

i 1 Piter dii ■ .'.■ to s'-t- 

timj; t lie ixjliiicai (lueHiions which were then disturbiug the Amer- 
ican iH'ople. 

I have l)efore me volume 1 of Cases on Constitntionnl Law, by 
Tliiyi-r. I find i: v of the Dred Scott case, from 

' li.ih 1 di'sire to 1 ■ or two. First, to show tli.it tlio 

. .!iion n-ad by C'hiet Justice Taiify was not the opinion of tlio 
< o,,rt. but only his own opinion, the author calls attention to tho 
remarks made by Mr. .Justice C'ainpV)ell l)efore the liar Association 
•if t ■ ■ itli of >lr. .Tiistico 

Cur . . I have indicated, 

sayinfj: 

It " ■- •'■■- ' "• •■ •' ••• ■•> •'■•■ ♦ '1 • •' -• . ..li-^ukTfll, 

Klid ' 

1 li* . 1 i in- .1 u i u ■! 1 . "ii* ' ^> 1 II _; . 1 1 1 i 1 1'- . .nil -•■ tfi llirs 1 1 1 ."^CUSSiOn — I 

have not >tojit)od to re.ul all that Mr. .lustico Campbell said— Uiics 
thi^ ■ k which I did quote: 

'" ■Mln'uiiinlon iflven by the Chief 

t. 

-> ..,1 .; .. ; .....: ..i-i-rt of what I said as to the 

action of Mr. Justice Wayne in undertaking to secure a settle- 
ment by ■ ' . • ,1, ;^i,,i dei-ision of the theu pending 

troll''!' •^. This author .';a\-s: 

A- rm, Mr. 

JuHt. .I-t-ri-.o 

«"oui , olJ 111.- 

in til' • I't ?io . 

-ti- 



Vll 

...n, 

UalilU- 



1 1 - 

■■ fl 

•ho 

' , ili- 

t'» 

no 

, . • a- 

I > this for the purpose of showing, in the first 

place, that this declaration, which is found in this decision, in the 
o»;ji ..... 



19 

syllabus of the case, was not the clecisiou of the court, and there 
was no authority whatsoever for putting it in thcsylhibus in that 
case except only the fact that language of that description con- 
cerning It had been foutid in the opinion of the Chief Justice; 
that it was not foiind in any other opinion in that case, and there- 
fore, instead of nine justices having ac<iuit seed. I say no justice 
except only Mr. Justice Wayne acquiesced, and 1 have read sufli- 
ciently as to the purj)oso of Mr. Justice Wayne; in that regard to 
show that liis acijuiescence was because of considerations that 
really had no piojiff i)'ace in the disjiosition of the ca.se by the 
court. Then fore what tlie Senator relics upon as a decision of 
the Supreme Court in support of this resolution is no decision. 
It has never been .so decided by that court, and has never been de- 
cided so by any other court in this land, either high or low. so far 
as I have been able to ascertain. 

The next iiroi)09ition of the Senator from Missouri I can dispo.se 
of rather briefly. It is predicated upon .sertiiju :'. of Article IV of 
the Constitution. That .sertion contains two clauses. The first 
relates to the admission of new States, and the second relates to 
the government of Territories. Without stopjiing to go over it 
in detail, it is sufHciont to say that the .Senator reverses these 
clauses and reads the last a.s though it were first and the first as 
though it were the second or the last. 

The PRESIDING OFKICEIi (Mr. TfRNKii in the chair). The 
hour of '2 o'clock having arrived, it is the duty of the Chair to lay 
before the Senate the unfinished business. 

Mr. M< )R(t.\N. I ask that the unfinish'd business, by unani- 
mous cou>ent, be laid a.side until the Senator from Ohio finishes 
his remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, rnanimous consent is asked that 
the unfinished business be temporarily laid aside. Is there objec- 
tion? The Chair hears none. The Senator from Ohio will pro- 
ceed. 

Mr. FORAKER. The Senator from Missouri then concludes 
that because of the reading of the text of tlie Constitution wlieu 
so arranged it is clear to every intelligent layman that it was in- 
tended by the framers of the Constitution that no territory should 
be accpiired except only with the present intention of ultimately 
making it a State. 

Mr. President, the whole of that argument, it seems to me, falls 
to the ground when we reverse the order and read it, not as the 
Senator has reail it. but as the framers of the Constitution read it. 
They chose the order; and when you restore the proper order, the 
order in which they placed these provi.sions. no such deduction 
can be rightfully made -as that which the Senator from Missouri 
has made. 

I pass now to the consideration of the arguments that have 
been made by some other Senatoi-s. and taking them in the order 
in which they were made, I want, first, briefly to speak of the 
argument that was made in support of this resolution by the 
Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Caffery]. I do not say I wish to 
speak briefly of it because I think it unworthy of more tlian brief 
notice, for it is an argument that shows the usual ability of the 
Senator from Louisiana. 

It is an argument that well merits attention, and it ought not to 
go unanswered in this debate, but I speak briefly of it becaus? a 
number of the propositions advanced by him aie common to the 

oC31 



20 

Hrgnment of the Sonator f rom Massachiisetts [Mr. II<>ak]. iiiiule 
flay bi'fore wslenluy, ami ti) that of tlio Seiiatur from lllino s | Mr. 
Mas(in| inado ycstt-rday; aiul in aii><\veriiij^th<Mn [ can answer liim 
as to those propositions that aro roninum to their tliree speeches. 
I therefore content ujyself now with an answer siniiily to those 
propositions whidi belonj^ to liiin alone, anil that I can do very 
brielly. lie lias live proj)ositions. He says: 

Fi' • ■ I St;ifo-i IxMiitj "'^f til'"" P'>'ijili>. Iiy 

thf'i' ; Irmn a<M|uiriiitr torritury lor tho 

1> iiua II- i>. Miiii! into the Union iiguiiist thtir will 



— • ••■' i,y the r-'' ' ^' ■• ■ - ! •• :• m- 

i. lU tit it .'4H 

. the Coii. : .. to 

I .11 111 -i •'i liii ~' iiii>iii> -iiKii-, I lint consent shall ho given when 
we actpiiro territory, as I have already said, is ono of the propo- 
8itit)nso; n- fruiu M.i 'nl I will answer tliat 

wh*-n It. -wer his n-i i •cond of these propo- 

sitions, tluit territory «an be acinured only with a view to nlti- 
mitely makiiif; it a State, is ono that I have ah'cady answered in 
witat i have said as to the jiower of the (ioverniiient nnder tlio 
war 1 the treaty-niakiii,:,' power to aciiuire tirritory ami 

in ti - of authority thai 1 have made. His third propo- 

sition is iiH tollows: 

■I'l ... 1 11 .,;', 1,. ... .V '■■■*••-;•••••:•••■ ■■' • iioxod nro iiiea 

1 L'liionuurhold 

l: , - •■■ ■ • > ^ .■ -r.- ■■^■ 

31r. President, I utterly dis-sent from that proposition. Suppose 
the territory of Fl trida iiad been inliahited by people who were 
incapable of >>elf-,L(overnment. or Mii»po.<e tho territory coinniand- 
inj^ the month of tl ;ii liiver had Ix^en inhabited bypeo- 

jile incapable of seL ., . . .....cat, wonld that have precluded tliis 

Government from ac<|niring that territory in tlto exercise of tho 
«. ' Aitli whicli the Ctovernmeut is invested to 

1 : the peoiilc and advance them? Could wo 

not take possession ot tliat territory and thus get an outlet to the 
sea simply because it might be inhabited by people who, in our 
judgment, were not capable of self-government? With all duo 
1. . ' ". uator from Louisiana, I tliink the mere statement 
I M is a suflici'-nt ansW'M- to the ar'/nment. 

sivo tlioir con- 

•»a and of a di»- 

iii'^, niuniiern, traditions, and 

i iiKorponito tbcm into tho 

That, Mr. President, raises simply a question of policy. I will 
address myself to that— to the brief extent I intend to talk about 
it— when I come to speak in an.s"\ver to the resolution intrcxluced 
by the Senator from Illinois. 

The fifth proposition, and the last one, is as follows: 

p:r'i. T'. ■• ■-. ii. I-.-' .f •,-,\- »,.--r ,i,.T-v i< •..■,,n;iv(i },y the I 'nit'""' -t't'-.a in f nil 
s '- of th«? I'lii' -^ witli 

1' :• .. .:y of tlni L'ui I'.s, and 

1 '.liiititr;^. aii>l lUijio.^tobLallbtruuiIorm throughout the Lulled States, 

i.. -, ill! it.s Territories. 

I do not take any issue with that propo.xition, Mr. President, but 
I do stop hero to call attention to the fact that tho burden, or at 
least one of the burdens, of the complaint of the Senator from 
Louisiana in support of this resolution was that by annexing the 



Fourth. Th.i 
sent, but arc- 


■ capal il 


si nuliir race. \'. 




hal'its, it is i;. 




L'nion. 





21 

Philippine Islands we wf-ro liftiiip: np to thehi.u;h plane of Ameri- 
can citizenship and making equals with the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts even, in the presence of the Constitution and the laws 
of this country, the inhabitants of those islands, something, in 
his judgment, tiiey were not deserving of. unfit for. 

Later, wheji the Senator from Massachusetts spoke, he did not 
have any objection, as I understotid him. on the ground that they 
were to be lifted up. but the burden of his complaiiit was that 
they were to be sul)jected to a state of vassalage and to 1-e made 
subjects of this Government without their consent being given 
thereto, 

I come now. Mr, Pre.sident, to the speech of the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. HoAK I : and before I undertake in my humble 
way to say in answer to it what I feel moved to say I wisli to state 
that I listened to it with the very greatest illt^Test, as I always 
listen to atiy thing that is spoken in this Chamber or flsewhore by 
the Senator wlu-n it is my happy fortujie to be able to listen. It 
was a speech of great ability, a speech such as only few men could 
make. J^ut, Mr. President, when it is all reduced to i»ract:cal 
propo.sitions, it amoiintod, as I understood it, simply to this, that 
the Government of the United Stiites has no constitutional jiower 
to ac(iuiro territory except only for constitutional purposes, of 
which purjiosps the Senator from Ma>^sachusetts seems to consti- 
tute himself the sole and exclusive judge. 

In other words, Mr. President, it must bo a constitutional pur- 
pose according to the definition given by the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts of Iho purposes of the Constitution. He specifies that it 
is constitutional under the Constitution for the Government, in 
the exercise of its constitutional power with respect to the actjui- 
sition of territory, to secure a coaling station, a naval station, a 
place for a post-otlico or a custom-house, and remembering our 
experience last summer at the la>t session, he thought it was con- 
stitutional to ac(iuire Hawaii; that that was a constitutional jnir- 
pose because necessary to the national delense. I did not under- 
stand the Senator to say, but 1 understood him to admit, that 
when this Government ac(iuires territory for one of these consti- 
tutional purposes it is not necessary to secure the consent of the 
people who may occupy that territory ami who must by the aciiui- 
sition pass under our jurisdiction and be governed by us. 

IMr. HOAR. I did not make any such admission. 

]\Ir. FOliAKER. The Senator says he did not make any such 
admission. I say I did not understand him to say anything on the 
subject. I rather thought he had in mind the fact tluit when we 
were debating the Hawaiian resolution there was a protest filed 
here in this Chamber by the Senator from ^lassachusetts, signed 
by more than 14.000 of the Kanakas, or natives of that island, 
protesting against the acciuisition by the United States Govern- 
ment of the Hawaiian Islands and the extension of our jurisdic- 
tion over them. 

Mr. HOAR. The Senator, I am sure, will pardon me? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. HOAR. The people of Hawaii voted upon a constitution, 
and in that constitution they expressly authorized their legislative 
body to make provision for their annexation to the United States. 
Thereupon, in pursuance of the constitution, which had been in 
force for six or seven years, they proceeded to do it. Now. it is 
true that I presented a paper purporting to be signed (I do not 
»>3l 



K 



22 

know whtiher iho .sii^natme ; w.-re or weiv not in overy case \cr\- 
lieil) by a iiiL'tty lar;^o nnmlKr of tho Kanakas, but I beliovctl thfii 
and stated tlicn, and I believL' now. that a majority of the citizt iis 
of Hawaii desired annexation to the Tnited States; and that, in 
addition to that, everythint; in that island which could be called 
the germ of a national life was on tliat side; and so did the Senator 
from ( ihio believe, 1 am sure. 

Mr. FOKAKKK. Surely; l)ut I Imd no constitutional trouble 
about it. Nuw, all tho Senator has said is ([uite true; but tho 
fact remains, and that is what I am calling attention to, that ho 
did not state in liis ' if ho did it ( scai>ed mo, and 1 alludu 

to it now that ho m. ct me if 1 shunld bo correctod— that 

when wo actjuiro toriilury for a constitutional i)urpi>so the con- 
sent has anything to do witli it. .Sniipose wo aciiuiro a coaling 
station that is situated u|K»n an island in tho sea. It is a con- 
i;titutioual purpose for which wo have to acquire it. Supposo 
the inhabitants le of such a character that it is essential to tho 
safety of our interests there that wo aciiuiro tho whole island, 
though there bo a lliousand, or ten thousand, or one hundred 
thousitnd, as in the case of Hawaii, or a million i»eoplo or more, 
as may 1)0 the ca.se as to Lu/on. Suji! •'■.< ac(|uired it for ♦! 
constitutional ]>ur|>o>.i«, a pnrpoMi> \\y,\^ •Intdy es.sontial to 

the national the pi;i naliuaal ilefensc, must wo 

stopinsticha cureci.; the poitulationV The Sen- 

ator's statement wa« in regard to Hawaii. Would we stop and 
jeopardize tho national ii;* • • ' ••■--• -:iiro a place nec- 
essary to tho national t; y there had not 
been consulted? And s. It Ujo pupulatiuu and they 
object, or some of them ' ' then.' 

Mr. HOAK. If the Senator will pardcm nie, it was not appro- 
priate or apt to what I had to say the other day to e-xpress an 
oi)inion on that subject, but I ct-rtainly aflirm that if it were d*^- 
sii " lit, or We ;" utial f(»r our national 

de: outlying t' . .le peo}ilo there po^s<'ss- 

ing that territory objected, I should consider the elaiming it, an- 
nexing it, subjecting it, under those circumstanc es as a great 
national crime to be repudiated, denounced: an<l 1 should consider 
that the United .Stat<'3 had better p ■ 'h the waters of 

the Pacitic in honor rather tlian ; by doing that 

thing. 

Mr. FORAKER. Now, Mr. President, we understand the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts 

^Ir. H< )AR. Yes; you understand me now. 

Mr. F< iRAKEH. \Ve undir>tand from the Senator from Mas- 
sachu.setts what we did not learn from his speech tlie day before 
yesterday. We have i- •< > -d that, according to his interpretation 
of the Constitution, \ ons may be acquired for constitutional 

1)11 md they m.jy Lu acquired for jiurpos-es that are not con- 

st li in thesense in which he has (letiiied thos<^'puri)oses, but 

thai m ail cases where territory' is acquired, whether for constitu- 
tional i»urpose.s or not, the consent of the inhabitants of that ter- 
ritory must Le f^ecured before we can acquire it. 

Mr. HOAR. Tliat is not what I said. I .said where there is a 
people there governing it. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am assuming that there is a people. No- 
body else would object, I suppose, but a people. 

Air. HOAR. That is a pretty essential part of the stiitement. 



23 

Jlr. FORAKER. Yes: I was assuming that. Now. Mr. Presi- 
dent, in other words 

Mr. HOAR. I do not mean to say if there is a continent of 
10.000,000 square miles, over wliich there are five or .six thousand 
savages roaming, incapahle of national life, incapable of civilized 
life, incainible of government, not a people, not the germ of a 
people, never to hei-ome a people, that civilization and C'liristian 
government are estopped at the threshold. That is a different 
thing. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes. 

Mr. H< )AR. I do not suppose if Alexander Selkirk, instead of 
lan<ling on his little ishind, as Defoe de.scnljes in his tale of Rohin- 
son ("rusoc. hail lainled on tlie continental island of Australasia, 
and there had been nolxjdy t-l.so there, that he or his descendants 
could have kept off forever and forever the footsteps of man. That 
is not the point. You have got to take that thing i)ractic.illy. 
But whr-re there is, as there is in the Philippine Islands, a people 
possessiTig a country 

Mr. F(JRAKER. I am not talking about the Philippine Islands 
yet. I am talking about the abstract question, and I want to go 
on with it. 

Mr. IK JAR. So am I. Wiien there is. as there clearly is in the 
ca^e I ;ini speaking of in the Pluli|»piiit' Islands now. a people, or 
to take the ca.se of Canada, which has been cited here, remon- 
strating. I say it would be a great national crime, and our fathers 
saiil it would bo a great national crime, for us to undertake to 
subdue and occupy that territory for any puri)osL' of our own; 
and if wo can not live as a nation without committing that crime 
we (juglit to die as a nation without committing it. That is my 
doctrine. 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, as I now understand the Sen- 
ator from Mas-^achusetts. he does not think the march of civiliza- 
tion ought to be estoi»ped for the want of consent. 1 suppose the 
manh of the French from the mouth of the Congo acro.ss the 
Dark Continent of Africa to meet the British in their march up 
the Nile to Fashoda would meet with the apjirobation of the Sen- 
ator, without regard to consent, because in those regions are to 
bo found not the kind of civilization which he hits dejncted to 
lis as being found in the Philippine Island--, but the character of 
civilization that has been described as existing on those islands 
by the Senator from Louisiana |Mr. CAFi'Krtv |. 

But, as I was saying. Mr. President. I did not intend a discus- 
sion at this stage about the Philippines. 1 wanted an understand- 
ing of the abstract proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts: 
I wanted to know, and I have now found out what I did not learn 
from his speech when he made it the other day— that he .says con- 
sent is necessary to the constitutional acquirement and govern- 
ment of territory by the United States when acquired even for 
those constitutional jiurpo.ses which he has designated as within 
the purview of the Constitution. 

In other words, according to the Senator from Massachu.setts, 
we can not acquire a coaling station in the Pacific unless the peo- 
ple who happen to be living upon and occupying the territory so 
to be acquired give their consent thereto. I do not as.sent to that 
doctrine. But l)eforeIi)rnceed allow metorevertto what I wanted 
to say a moment ago. It is true, Mr. President, that the iieoplo 
who established the Government over the Hawaiian Islands had 
3(ai 



•^oA- 



24 

franietl a constitution in wiiiih it was provided that they might 
ne.^otiate a treaty of annexation: yet it was also trne, and con- 
ceded in the debate that ensued upon the question, that there was 
a population of p?rhap3 10->,0I)0 in that island, composed of Kana- 
kas. Japanese, Chinese, Portuguese, and almost all other nation- 
alities, and that only about :},0lJO of those lOS.OOO had participatv'd in 
the creation of the Government or its conduct, or were having any- 
thing to do with the annexation of that territory to this country; 
and it was insisted— I remember the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Bacon] rather strenuously insisted at one stage of the dehate — 
that there should l.'e a plebisc-ite ordered before we should annex 
Hawaii by act of legislation or otherwise; and I understood the 
Senator from Massachusetts, when he presented a protest, as it 
was called, signed hy more than 14,000 of the inhabitants of that 
island against annexation, to not insist upon it for the simple 
reason that, while ordinarily consent should be obtained, yet we 
were ac;iuiring that territory for a great national purpose, the 
national defense, and that a nation has a right to preserve its own 
life, and it is not required when any acquisition of a piece of ter- 
ritory is essential to its national preservation and life to go to the 
island and consult the inhabitants of it, or to take a vote, or in 
any other manner whatsoever consult the wishes of that people 
and be governed thereby. 

Mr. HOAR. I said we must take the action of the Government. 
That is what I said at the time. 

Mr. FO:ftAKER. 1 think 1 understand. 

Mr. HOAR. Idonotthinkyoudoimderstand. I said at the time 
that it was impossible in dealing with a people to deal with any- 
thing but the established Government. That Government had been 
established, and during the four years of President Cleveland's 
hostility had maintained itself by the consent of that people in 
peace and in freedom. In such a case there is no need of talking a 
plebiscite of the people. 

Mr. FORAKER. However that may be, I have pursued it as 
far as I care to, and I want to proceed. I take issue with the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts upon the proposition that when you 
acquire territory for a constitutional purpose you must secure 
the consent of the people in acquiring that territory; and I want 
to follow that with this proposition, that it is not only an acquisi- 
tion of territory for a governmental purpose when you acquire it 
for a post-office, a custom-house, a naval station, or a coaling sta- 
tion, but it is equally the acquisition of territory for a govern- 
mental purpose when in war you take it by conquest to despoil, 
weaken, and destroy your enemy; and it is equally the acquisition 
of territory for a governmental piirpose when, at the conclusion 
of a war with a bankrupt nation, they have nothing with which 
to indemnify you except only territory, and you take it on that 
account. These are all constitutional purposes, and no consent 
of the people is necessary in any them. 

But. Mr. President, what are we to think? Is it possible that 
'this great and powerful nation of ours, powerful in peace and 
powerful in war, and to be powerful, we trust, in the commercial 
world, has no power to subserve its own necessary and constitu- 
tional purposes except only by the consent of the people who may 
for the time being be affected? I utterly repudiate any such 
-doctrine. 

Why, Mr. President, this Government, as I have undertaken to 

SG31 



^o \s- 



25 

point out, has unqualified and unrestricted power to acquire ter- 
ritory bv treaty. When you acquire territory by treaty, is not that 
acquiring it for a constitutional purpose? If the Chief Executive 
of the nation sign and the yenate of the United States ratify a 
treaty agreeing that territory shall be acquired in a given case, 
are we to assume that it was not a constitutional purpose for 
which it was acquired and that they have violated the Constitu- 
tion? Is the purpose in such case open to question? 

We were talking about Canada this morning. Suppose, Mr. 
President, the cordial relations, with which we are ail so much 
gratified, that are existing now between Canada and the mother 
country and tliis country should continue, and that in the course 
of events there should be developments of such a character as to 
show that it was highly advantageous to both countries to annex 
Canada to the United States, we would certainly have authority 
under the Constitution to negotiate and ratify and put into force 
such a treaty, and if we put it in force— I mean if we thus ac- 
quired Canada, and acquired it to promote the interests of both 
countries, and particularly those of our own country— would that 
not be a constitutional purpose? Take tlie preamble of the Con- 
stitution and read it. Would not the promotion in that way of 
our national interests be within the meaning of that Constitution? 
Most clearly it would. In such a case there would doubtless be 

full consent. , ^ , , , • 

But sui^pose that, on the contrary, instead of these relations 
ripening into that kind of a result, there should be an estrange- 
ment that would end in hostility and war, and it should be nec- 
essary for this country to march its armies across the border and 
take Canada, or part of Canada, by conquest, to straighten out the 
line, for instance, between the northern boundary line of Maine 
and the northern boundary of the lakes, to take it by way of m- 
demnitv or by conquest, just as you might take it m case of war, 
I ask would not that be a constitutional acquisition of territory? 

If that be a constitutional purpose, and it be so constitutionally 
acquired, can we not govern it without stopping to count how 
many people there are and to know whether or not they are hos- 
tile to us, as probably that people would be in view of our taking 
their territory in that manner, or without stopping to inquire 
whether or not the people against whom we had been waging 
■war, whose country we had found it necessary to take away from 
them and add to our own, if consulted, would give, formally or 
otherwise, their assent to the proposition? It seems to me, with 
all due deference to the distinguished Senators who advance the 
proposition, that it is absolutely untenable. 

Again, a great deal was sought to be made of the fact that the 
Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] answered an inquiry of 
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] by saying that '• the 
just powers of government are derived from the consent of some 
of the governed." That is strictly true. True, as the Senator 
from Connecticut pointed out at the time when he remarked it, 
minors are citizens" of the United States, and yet we do not stop 
to consult them as to government; women are citizens of the 
United States, and yet, so far as the exercise of the elective fran- 
chise at least is concerned, they are not consulted. 

There are many other instances, and one was recalled to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, as I understand, soon after he took 
his seat by the distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. PettusJ , 
CG31 



26 

when ho cauie and romiiideil the Senator from Massachusetts of 
the events in this country from 18fil to 1865, I understood he so 
reminded him. but whether he did or not it is true that Mr. 
Lincoln was ehrted President in isoo. not by a majority but l)y 
a minority vote. Ho was never Presidejit upon tht- call of the 
majority of the electors of tlie United States, and eleven States of 
this Union wont into rebellion, undertook to ro out of the Union, 
and fif^ht their way out, rather than stay and be governed by him. 
But Mr. Lincoln marshaled the armies of the nation, and after 
four years of war c(jmi)elled tlu-m to submit to the (iovcrnmunt 
Avhich he had been called upon t(j administer. We did not have 
the consent of those eleven States. 

But, say Senators on the other side, in this kind of a government 
the ma.iority must rule. Certainly the majority must rule, but 
the fact remains that only some consent if there be a minority. 
The fact that there is a minority shows that only .some are con- 
eeuting. The fact that there are those who are not consulted 
shows that only some are con.senting. 

But now, Mr. President, I want to pass all that by and hurry 
to a conclusion by calling attention to the fact that what has so 
disturbeil the Senator from Massachu.setts and other Senators is 
without any foundation wliatfver as I understand tlie facts. 

Wliat is the excu.se for talking ahout our intending to take a 
people who are struggling for freedom and liberty and independ- 
ence and with shot and shell and sword and bayonet subjecting 
them to our power and our institutions and despotically govern- 
ing them against their willy I have not heard of anybody wishing 
or intending to do that. 

Mr. President, the trouble with the gentlemen is that they are 
talking about a theory instead of the condition that e.xists. What 
is the practical condition about which we are concerned, and what 
have Senators on the other side otTorod for the solution of that 
situation? We had war with Spain; I need not recount why. The 
fortunes of war carried us to the Philippines. When the war 
ended, those islands eitlier had to be returned to Spain or they had 
to be taken by other nations, as other nations might see fit to take 
them, or the people of those islands had to be left in a state of 
anarchy, without government— for they had none then and have 
none j'et— or else they had to be taken by the United States. 

The first proposition was, Shall we return tho.se i-slands to Spain? 
The Republican convention of Massachusetts answered that, and 
the Senator from Massachusetts time and again on the stump in 
the campaign, as I saw him reported in the newspapers, spoke in 
indorsement and approval of the declaration of the Republican 
convention of the State of Massachusetts when it said these islands 
should not be returned to Spain. 

Mr. HOAR. I wrote it. 

Mr, FORAKER. You wrote it? FLaughter.! 

Mr. nUAR.^ Yes. 

Mr. FORAKER. Then I presume it is .safe to assume that we 
can quote the Senator from Massachusetts as oppos-ed to tlie re- 
turn of the Philippine Islands to Spain. 

Mr. HOAR. Yes. 

Mr. F(JRAKER. Then I am sure as to that proposition we are 
all agreed, and rightly. The rule of Spain in the Philippines had 
been, as in all her other colonies, cruel and unlx^arable almost be- 
yond description and expression. It would have been an inhu- 



1^ a 



7 



07 

manity to have returned those i.slands to her. So the first thJng 
settled was that they shoukl not go back to Spain. What, then, 
was to be done was the practical question. We had to deal with 
it in a practical way. 1 saw it reported in the newspapers, and I 
saw it stated upon other authorities, that before the Peace Com- 
mission and elsewhere the statement was made, and made on be- 
half of Aguinaldo and the insurgents he represented, that if the 
United States did not take them, there would be almost all Europe 
on their backs the next morning before breakfast. 

That was the homely expression that was used in the newspa- 
pers. By that was meant simjily that there was apprehension, and 
apprehension in themindsof the ]'"ilii)inos themselves, that if they 
escaped Spain, by our refusing to return them they would be at 
the mercy of other European powers that might parcel them out 
among themselves. We did not want that. I need not stop to 
give reasons wliy, but, l\Ir. President, we did not have any moral 
light to allow any such thing as that. We were not very well ac- 
quainted as yet with the Filipinos, but we at once decided against 
both of these propositions. Who will say our decision was unwise'.-' 

What, then, was lefti' We had left on our hands the choice of 
allowing to them their independence and the privilege of establish- 
ing a free republic, which I do not understand anybody intends 
to deny to tliem, except only temporarily at the most, and allow- 
ing them to run all the risks of disorder and tyranny and misrule 
and mob rule, or otherwise we had to accept them and take caro 
of them ourselves. 

Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator repeat what he has just said? 

]Mr. FORAKER. I do not know whether I can. 

Jlr. HOAR. About what nobody proposed. I understood the 
Senator to state that nobody proposed to do certain things. 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not nnderitand anybody to be proposing 
to take the Philippine Islands with the idea and view of perma- 
nently holding them and denying to the people there the right to 
have a government of their own if they are capable of it and want 
to establish it. I do not understand that anybody wants to do 
that. I have not heard of anybody who wants to do that. The 
President of the United States does not, I know, and no Senator 
in this Chamber has made anv such statement. 

Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator allow me to ask him if he claims 
that we have the right to do what nibody proposes to do? 

Mr. FORAKER. The right to do what? 

Mr. HOAR. To do what the Senator says nobody proposes to do. 

Mr. FORAKER. To allow them independence? 

Mr. HOAR. I ask if we have the right to hold them without 
giving them their independence if we want to? 

Mr. FORAKER. Unquestionably, if we take the Philippine 
Islands, so far as the question of power is concerned, I think 
there is no question whatever 

Mr. HOAR. I used the word "right." 

Mr. FORAKER. I used the word "right" also, I am speak- 
ing, however, of the legal right: I am speaking of the power; I 
am speaking of the right; I am speaking of the authority of this 
Government. When it comes to the question of policy, I will tell 
you in a minute what I think about that. I am now telling you 
what we decided— and I think the Senator will agree with me— 
that those islands ought not to be given back to Spain or given to 
any other European power wliich would partition them out. Only 

3t>31 



28 

two thiiij^s were left— to leave thi'iu to themselves at once and re- 
tire iiiitaediately, tukinj; no responsilnlity whatever lor thecondi- 
tioii tlnre obtainini;. or else take charge of them by cession from 
Spain, askinjj the world to have confidence in this threat (tovern- 
ment. which has ever son^ht to do right, that we will deal with 
them as they should he dealt witli. 

As a result, the connnisaioners representing the United States 
at Paris have a^'reed upon a treaty— it has been publishi-d in tlie 
newspai)ers, and. therefore. 1 may speak of it freely, although tho 
ban of secrecy has not yet been removed forujally— according to 
the terms of which we are to take possession of these islands. 
Spain has agreeil to that, ajid I suppose that tlie treaty in the near 
future will he ratilied. I can not say with proprietv-^^ 

Mr. IIAWLEV. Mr. Pre.sitlent. 1 have objected to other Sena- 
tors interrupting the distinguished Senator from Ohio, but I beg 
to read something so entirely apropos to wliat he is arguing that 
I can not resist asking his consent to do .so at this time. 

]\Ir. FoRAKKK. (.'.rt.iinly. 

iSlr. llA\VLi:v. Hen- is an act passed by Congress March 3, 
18:21. I shall not read the whole of it: 

n>-it t',uut,l • '• - ' '" . -• 'firm of Ihi'l'nitf I states 

nf Am< lira ill ■ rit of t)i.- riiit.>.l StatoH 

b(«. and lie is h. ;.,......... . ;.;,,„. i.,, ,. - . ,, .,f and occui«y tho Torri- 

tories of Kjust and Wi-st Florida, and tho aiiinMid.-iKos and a|i]Mirtonancca 
thereof; and to remove and transport tho oltieers and soldiers of the King of 
Spain. Ix'inK there, t > tho Havana, a^rooubly to tho stipulations ol a treaty 
between tlio United States and !Si)aiu. 

But before that, in advance of any treaty, in advance of any 
declaration of war. Congress directed the President to take pos.ses- 
sion of east and west Florida and establish a temporary govern- 
ment therein. 
Section 2 of the act fmin which I am reading provides: 
Tliat until the end of tli. ini of the next Congress, unless provision 

forthetenip(jruryKoverni' .; ITi-rritoriesl^sooner made by C'oUKress, 

all the military. <ivil. an<l juduuil jKiwers exenised by tlie oflicer'ri <>f the ex- 
istiug government of tho wimo Territories shall Ix* vested in such person and 
p>'rs( >ns, and shall be exercised in such manner as tho 1're.sident of the United 
States shall direct. 

He was by that act made the absolute monarch of Florida. 
Afterwards, by a subsequent act. there was organized what was 
called a government; and it was provided; 

That the legislativ.? i.uwir shall be vested in the governor and in thirteen 
of the most fit and di-croct persons of the Territory, to be calk-d the h-gi-ja- 
tivo coun<il. who shall be appointed annually by the President of tho United 
States, by and with the advice and consent of tho Senate, from among the 
citizens of the Uui'ed States residing there. 

Without any consent whatever of the people. 

Mr. FOR A KER. Mr. President, I have but a word or two more 
to say in conclusion. 

Mr. BACON. Will the Senator pardon me for asking a ques- 
tion as he is passing from that branch of his address? 

Mr. FORAKER. I was not (juite through with that. 

Mr. BACON. I want to ask this (jue.stion. and I do it because 
I desire to know what is the position of the Senator. What is 
there differing between the condition of the people of the Philij)- 
pine Islands and tlie people of Cuba which would prevent our 
making the same stipulations and the same requirements in regard 
to the Philippine Islands that we have made in regard to Cuba? 

Mr. FORAKER. Just this, Mr. President; In the ca.se of Cuba 
there was no complication whatever involving any other power 

3tj31 



7-/. 



29 

except only the powers of Spain and the United States, and in the 
case of the Philippine Islands there are complications which I can 
not spealc of hero in tliis open chamber with propriety, but which 
yon will hear of when we sit behind closed doors to consider this 
treaty, which justify in the most complete manner, as I under- 
stand it, the action of the President in pursuing the course which 
has been pursued. In fact, no other course would have been a 
safe course for this country to pursue, having in view the object 
and the end not only of jiistice to ourselves in this controversy, 
but especially justice and right and the promotion of the good of 
the Filipinos themselves. 

Mr. HOAR. May I ask the Senator one question, and I will 
not ask him another on this particular point on which he is dis- 
coursing? He says, as I understand, that after the pacification of 
these islands, they should be restored to the inhabitants if they 
desire it and are fit to take control. Now, in that case, is or is 
not the American flag to be hauled down? 

Mr. FOllAKER, Well. Mr. President, that is a question which 
wo will answer when we come to it. 

jMr. HOAR. 1 thought we had come to it now, 

;Mr. FORAKER. What I have said in answer to the Senator is 
in the record, and will show that I do not know of anybody who 
wants to take possession of the Philippine Islands and govern 
the people of those islands indetiniioly against their will, by force 
of arms. I believe that the President of the United States and 
those who are supporting his policy in this regard are as much 
lovers of liberty and justice as is the Senator from Massachusetts, 
and I believe their love of liberty and freedom and independence 
will go out in the future, as it goes out to-day, to the Filipinos 
and all the rest of mankind, as certainly and as unerringly as his. 

Mr. HOAR. My question to the Senator was not put as a mere 
piece of rhetoric or word playing. 

Mr. FORAKER. There was not much rhetoric about it, I will 
admit. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HOAR. I understand, whether rightly or not, that the 
gentlemen who have said the American flag shall not be hauled 
down wliere it has been once raised, mean to have it understood 
that we are to hold perpetual dominion over those people whether 
they consent or no. That is what I understood, and I wanted to 
see what was the Senator's view about that. 

Mr. FORAKER. Well, Mr. President, I will tell the Senator 
what my view is 

Mr. HOAR. Does the Senator mean, if the people of the Phil- 
ippine Islands think it is for their happiness to try to govern 
themselves, that we should withdraw the power of the United 
States and let them do it? 

Mr. FORAKER. I think when wo come to consider the ques- 
tion of policy with respect to the Philippines, with the conditions 
there existing, their feeling of friendship, or their feeling of con- 
sent or of ob.iection, will have much to do with determining Con- 
gress in that respect. I say I do not know of anybody, from the 
President of the United States down to his humblest follower in 
this matter, who is proposing by force and violence to take and 
hold those islands for all time to come. That is all I can say in 
answer to the Senator. 

I am willing to trust the Administration; I am willing to trust 
the institutions of this Government and the people of this Oov- 
30:31 



n ' 



30 

ernment to do justice by the Filipinos. I have no sympathy 
■whatever Mr. Pn-siileiit. and I do not IjL'lievo the Administratiun 
has, witli the war which some people talk ahout making on 
Agiiinnldo and his followers in their struggle for lii)erty and inde- 
pendence, and I have no syin]iathy whatever with tlm talk that is 
indulged in in some i)Iaces about making war on Gome/, and hi.s 
followirs will) have l^ecn struggling for the liheration of (''u1)a. 
In duo time all that will be reached and considered. But I say 
now that this case, as every other case, must stand or tall upon 
its own merits and be measured by its own facts, conditions, and 
circumstances. 

I know wli- reof I speak win n I sav that of the four things wo 
had the choice of doing— giving the islands back to Spain, giving 
tliem to other countries, leaving them to anarchy, or taking them 
ourselves— the President acted most wisely when he concluded 
that we should take them our.«"elves; and lie comes now and sa^'s, 
when hi' submits this treaty, "You put me to war: here is tin- re- 
sult; here are these people: do with tliem as you like.' It is for 
the Congreas of the I'nited States to investigate and find out 
about the islands of the Philipjiines. what kind of inliabitants 
they may have, whether or not they are capaljlo of government, 
and whether or not they want government, or whether or not 
only a few want govt rnment. 

What is the feeling of the population? You can not tell that in 
the short time we have had to deal with them. At least 1 have 
not been able to satisfy my mind about it. I hope in the nt-ar 
future to bo able to do so, and 1 hope that in due course, at no dis- 
tant day. we can act intelligently, and I know we will act justly. 

I wish, in concluding, to submit and have printed at the close of 
my remarks the order made by the President with respect to the 
Philippine Islands, dated December 21, 1N98. I shall not stojt to 
rea<l it. but I sulanit it and ask that it may go into the Ri:;<('Ui> 
sim]ily that the spirit with which he has undertaken to do what 
he is doing may be made manifest. 

Mr. President. 1 thank yuu. [Manifestations of ajiplause in the 
galleries.] 



Appendix. 

ExFX'UTivE Mansion, 
WasJiiiitjdm, Decouhrr :?1, 75.9.<?. 

Sir: The destruction of the Spanish fleet in the harbor of Ma- 
nila by the United States naval squadron commanded by Rear- 
Admiral Dewey, followed by the reduction of the city and the 
surrender of the Spanish forces, practically effected the conquest 
of the Philippine Islands and the suspension of Spanish sover- 
eignty therein. 

With the signature of the treaty of peace betwe.-n the United 
States and Spain by their respective plenipotentiaries at Paris, 
on the 10th instant, and as the result of the victories of American 
arms, the future control, disposition, and government of the 
Philippine Islands are ceded to the United States. In fulfillment 
of the rights of sovereignty thus acrjuired and the responsible ob- 
ligations of government thus assumed, the actual occuiation and 
administration of the entire group of the Philippine Islands be- 



31 

come immediately necessary, and the military government here- 
tofore miintained by the United States in tlie city, harbor, and 
bfrotMaJnia Is to be extended ^vilh all possible despatch to the 

wliole of the ceded territory. c . , t- ■t.^.A 

In performing this duty, the military commander of the Ln ted 
States is enioined to make known to the inhabitants of the Philip- 
pine Islands that in succeedin.^' to the sovereipiyot Spain m 
severing tho former political relations of the inhabitants, and in 
es abishii i a new political power, the authority ot theLnited 
States is to be exerted for the security of the persons and propei-ty 
of the people of the islands and for the conhrmatiou ot all their 
nrivate rierhts and relations. , ,. 

^ It wm be the duty of the commander of tho forces of occupation 
to announce and proclaim in the most public manner that we 
come not as invaders or conquerors, but as trieuds, to protect 
the natives in their homes, in their employments, and m their 
pei-sonal and relifcious vv^hts. All P'^'^ons who <;^therJoy a^^^^ 
aid or by honest submission, cooperate ^ylth the Go\einment ot 
the United States to give effect to these ^^^"f.f^'^^^t l^^'I^Jf;^ ^ 
receive the reward of its support and protection. All otlieis wWl 
be brought within the hiwlul rule we have assumed, with hrmness 
if need be. but with.mt severity so far as may be possible. 

Within the absolute domain of mihlary authority, which neces- 
8arilvis and must remain supreme in the ceded teiTitorv until the 
le^isiationof tiie United States shall otherwise provide, the munic- 
ipal laws of the territory in respect to private rights and property 
and the repression of crime are to be considered as continuing in 
force, and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals so lar as 
nracticable. The operations of civil and municipal government 
Sre to be performed by such officers as niav accept the ^"Pi-e"iacy 
of the United States by tidying the oath of allegiance or by -^thce^ 
chosen as far as may be practicable from the inhabitants of the 

^"^ mfle the control of all the public property and the revenues of 
the state passes with the cession, and while the use and manage- 
ment of all public means of transportation are necessarily reserved 
to the authority of the United Stat. s. private property, whethei 
belonging to individuals or corporations, is to be respec-ted, except 
for cause duly established. The taxes and duties heretofore pay- 
able by the inhabitants to the lateGovernment become payable to 
the authorities of the United States, unless it be seen lit to substi- 
tute for them other reasonable rates or modes of contribution to 
the expenses of government, whether general or local. It pnv ate 
property be taken for military use it shall be paul tor when pos- 
sible in cash at a fair valuation, and when payment in cash is not 
practicable receipts are to be given. t ■ .^ ^ o^f,,^! ,,o- 

^ All ports and places in the l^hihppnio glands in the actua pos- 
session of the land and naval forces or the United S ates wi 1 be 
onened to the commerce of all friendly nations. All goods and 
warS not prohibited for military reasons by duo announcement 
of the military authority, will be admitted upon paynient ot sue 1 
duties and other charges as shall be in force at the time ot then 

"^iSuvJ^it should bo the earnest and paramount aim of the 
military admhiistration to win the contidenco, i-e^l?^^* and atTec- 
tion of the inhabitants of the Philippine,? by assuring to them m 

3G31 



H- I ^ 



32 

every possibl*^ wav that full measure of individual rights and lib- 
erties which is the heritage of free peoples, and by proving to them 
that the mission of the United States is one of benevolent assimi- 
lation, substituting the mild sway of justice and riglit for arbi- 
trary rule. In the fulfillment of this high mission, supporting the 
temperate administration of affairs for the greatest good of the 
governed, there must be sedulously maintained the strong arm of 
authority to repress disturbance and to overcome all obstacles to 
the bestowal of the blessings of good and stable government upon 
the people of the Philippine Islands under the free flag of the 
United States. 

WILLIAM McKINLEY. 
The SlX'RETARY OF War. 
113:31 



Sl'lTLEMEXTARY REMARKS 



OF 



HON". J. B. FORAKEE, 

OF OHIO, 



IN THE 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 

JANUARY 19, 1899, 
TO HIS SPEECH OF JANUARY 11, 1899, 



RELATIVE TO THE 



POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 

UNITED STATES TO ACQUIRE, HOLD, 

AND GOVERN TERRITORY. 



"w^siiiNG'ro2>r. 

1899. 



^ ^ s- 



E E ]\r A R K S 



OF 



HON. J. B. FOTvAKER 



The Sonato havinpr undor consiileration tho joint resolution (S. R. 101) ile. 
rlaring that nndor the Constitution of the United States no power is given to 
tho Federal Oovernmont to aoquiro territory to b3 hold and poverned per- 
manently as colonies, and Mr. Tuu.neii having addressed the Senate- 
Mr. FORAKER said: 

Mr. President: I have listened, as all who have remaiued in 
the Chamber doubtless have, with great interest to tho very able 
speech that has just been delivered. It has be?n an interesting 
and a very valuable contribution to this discussion. 

There were some things said, however, by the Senator from 
Washington in his speech, in his allusions to my remarks made 
on the nth instant, to which I desire to take exception. I did 
not see fit to interrupt him while he was engaged in delivering his 
speech, thinking it would perhaps be better to wait until he had 
concluded, so that if there should be more than one matter to 
which I desired to take exception, I might address myself to all of 
them at the same time. 

Early in the remarks made by the Senator from Washington, 
referring to the remarks I made here on the 11th, he quoted me 
as saying, as I understood him (and if I now quote him incorrectly 
I trust he will correct mo) that I had contended that the Govern- 
ment has an unlimited power to acquire territoi-y— which is true, 
in my judgment; I did so contend— and that I had also contended 
that Congress has an unlimited and unrestricted power to govern 
that territory without any reference whatever to the Constitution 
or any of its limitations. 

Mr. TURNER. If the Senator will permit me, he is in error 
in quoting me. 

Mr. FORAKER. I would be glad if the Senator from Wash- 
ington would turn to that part of his remarks. 

Mr. TURNER. I did not undertake to quote the remarks of 
3fiil 3 



the Senator from Ohio. I said that tlie doctrines of that Senator 
and others in a concrete form were to that effect; and I thinli they 
are. 

Mr. FORAKER. I can not quote the precise language em- 
ployed by the Senator from Washington, but it was to the effect 
that I had contended here that in governing territory which might 
be acquired by the United States we are not restricted by any of 
the limitations or provisions of the Constitution — I think his 
language was quite that strong. 

I want to call his attention to the fact that I did not say any- 
thing upon which justly he could have predicated such a state- 
ment. I would not think for one moment that the Senator would 
misrepresent intentionally or knowingly any statement that I 
might make, but thinking that he evidently has done so unwit- 
tingly, at least, I desire to call his attention to what I did say npon 
that point. 

What I said upon that point was in answer to interrogatories 
that were put to me in the course of the remarks I made. I think 
thej' were put by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Allen]. At 
any rate, at page 644 of the Congressional Record for January 
11 there appears the following upon that point: 

Mr. FoRAKER. I do not wish to be diverted from the argument in tlie 
midst of which I was, but I will pause just a moment to saj-, in answer to the 
Senator from Nebraslia, in order that I may answer him as well as the Sen- 
ator from Colorado, that we by act of Congi-ess in every instance where ter- 
ritory is acquired declare that the Constitution shall be extended, and then 
by act of Congress we provide legislation that will set the principles of the 
Constitution in motion in that territory. In other words, the Constitution 
does notproprio vigore extend into and operate in tiie territory; but when 
the legislative machinery has been supplied it then does operate there, and 
not until then. And in the Hawaiian bill now pending before the Senate, as 
suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge], that identical 
clause is to be found. 

Now, of course, when we sit here to legislate for the Territories that 
belong to the United States, we are governed and restricted and limited by 
the provisions of the Cou.stitution, and we could not faithfully keep our 
oaths and provide laws that would deny any of the constitutional immuni- 
ties and privileges to citizens in the Territories that are guaranteed by the 
bill of rights. 

In another connection on the same page I spoke again to the 
same effect. 

Mr. TURNER. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to 
interrupt him? 



Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. TURNER. I should like to ask the Senator what he 
meant in the succeeding paragraph of his speech by reading from 
page 456 of the eighty-sixth Federal Reporter, the case furnished 
him by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] , to this effect: 
"Congress has full legislative power over the Territories, unre- 
stricted by the limitations of the Constitution," if he did not mean 
the Senate to understand that he held that to be his doctrine. 

Mr. FORAKER. On what page is that found? 

Mr. TURNER. It is in the succeeding paragraph from the one 
you last read, page G44. 

Mr. FORAKER. Ah, yes. I take a great deal of i^leasure in 
answering the Senator's inquiry. The Senator would not need 
any answer from me if he had read the context. I had never be- 
fore seen the case to which he now calls my attention. It was 
handed to me by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt] who 
now occupies the chair. I liad no time to examine it. He called 
my attention to a paragraph of the syllabus, and I read it, making 
this remark at the time: 

I wish to put in one other authority, if the Senator will excuse me for a 
moment— 

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Tillman] had asked me 

a question — 

It is handed to me by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Platt]. It is 
tmmd in the eighty-sixth volume of the Federal Reporter, page 456, and 1= the 
case of Endelman et al. vs. The United States. I read from the second para- 
gi-aph of the syllabus, Ninth circuit court of appeals: 

" Congress has full legislative power over the Territories, unrestricted by 
the limitations of the Constitution." 

Seeing that that was a very broad declaration, broader than I 

had found in any other case, I then made this remark: 

I have not examined the case. I do not know what the court says in the 
opinion, but it seems to be quite applicable to the point now under consid- 
eration. 

Then I passed on. In other words, Mr. President, I took no re- 
sponsibility whatever for that case, and expressly so stated to the 
Senate when I made use of it upon a suggestion of the Senator 
from Connecticut. I do not know whether that proposition in 
the syllabus is limited or restricted or explained or not in the 
opinion of the court, and I so stated to the Senate at the innw 

3641 



/ o 



•\vheu I used it. Certainly, having usul the authority uinlor such 
circunistances and with such an explanation, it ought not to bo 
deemed by the Senator from Washington or by any other Senator 
a warrant for the declaration lie made, as I understood the effect 
of it and as I understand him now to concede the effect of it, 
that I had contended here that we could legislate with respect to 
the Territories of the United States without any regard whatso- 
ever to the limitations and restrictions and provisions of the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

Mr. MORGAN. Will the SonaiT Iruni <,'iiiu allmv lue.' 
Mr. FORAKER. If you will allow mo just a moment I shall 
be ploa.sed to have you interrupt me later. I not only employed, 
which is a part of this context, that which I have already quoted, 
but when further interrogated by the Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. Tillman] I used this language. He was a?-;l<ing, however, 
with special reference to legislation in regard to suffrage. On 
that same page of the Ria ouu I said: 

Unless Congress sees fit to provide, nolx»dy can vote in ti Territory. Tho 
whole subject witli '■ '■> a Territory i.s in the hands of Congress to 

loKislato alxjut as C": ..ay see fit, having reference to local conditions, 

and, of course, lieing Roverned by tho limitations of the Constitution in re- 
pard to those priu'-iples pertaining to personal liberty and jiersonal rights 
that are spoken of in the bill of rights. 

Mr. SPOONER. Tho question of suffrage is regulated by the 
States. 

Mr. FORAKER. Yes; the question of .suffrage is regulated by 
the States. 

Mr. MORGAX. Xow will the Senator permit me? 

Mr. FORAKER. Will you wait just a moment, until I read 
from Mr. Pomeroy? I want to read now in support of what 1 
said, what was my own statement, what was my own contention, 
and all of which was before the Senator from Washington when 
he made his remarks and attributed to me the argument which I 
contend I never made. 

I want to read, I say, in support of that precisely what he read 
a few minutes ago. I had not seen what Mr. Pomeroy said on 
the subject. I was simply acquainted, as I thought, with the ele- 
mentary principles with respect to that question. I was not 
Bpeaking with any particular authority in mind. I was simply 



/ 



aimoiincing what I understood to be an elementary constitutional 
doctrine. I was simply proceeding upon what I conceived to be 
the reason of the case, that we could not, sitting here as Senators 
of the United States in the discharge of official duties with respect 
to which we had taken an oath, an obligation, disregard the 
Constitution when wo came to legislate with respect to the Ter- 
ritories, but, on the contrary, were bound to observe all those 
provisions and guaranties and immunities provided for the citi- 
zen of the United States in the Bill of Rights. 

Now, see how clearly in line with the principal authority upon 
which the Senator relies my remarks were: 

Sec. 493. But is Conprross absolutely omnipotent over these districts and 
Territories? Is it. like the British P.irliamcnt, bound by no limitations savo 
those which are self imiMwinly This can not be. nor dojs tho laiiguago of *ha 
Constitution ro<iuiro a construction so much opposed to all our ideas of civil 
polity. The safc-jjuards of individual rights, thosj clauses which proservo 
the lives, liberty, and property of the citizon.s from the encroachments of 
arbitrary powi^-r. must api>ly as well to that legislation of Congress which is 
concerned e.xclusively witii the District of Columbia or with the Territories 
as to that which is concerned with the States. The reasoning which leads 
to this conclusion is irresistible. 

A bill of rij<hts is cartainly no less important for the District of Columbia 
and for the Territories th in for that portion of the nation which is organized 
into States. If it were thought necessary that Congress should bo hedged 
round with restrictions while it is legislating for the inhabitants of the 
States, who may be partially protected by their local governments, how 
much more necessary that tLe same body should be restrained while legis- 
lating for the inhabitants of those districts and Territories over which it has 
exclusive control and undivided sway. Now, it is to lie remarked that the m.an- 
datory clauses of the first eight amendments— which constitute the national 
bill of rights-are clothed in the most general language; they make no excep- 
tions; thoy apply to Congress in the exercise of all its functions; in general 
terms they cover its legislation for the District of Columbia and for the Ter- 
ritories, as well as for the States. 

These clauses must, therefore, b3 compulsive upon Congress when it makes 
laws for the District or for the Territories, unless the general language in 
which they are framed is controlled and modified by the particular language 
of the provisions which expressly relate to the District and to the Territories. 
These special provisions declare that Congress shall have power "to make 
all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory " and '' to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District." There is 
evidently nothing contradictory between the first of those provisions and 
the general restrictions of the bill of rights. In the second, the phrase "ex- 
clusive legislation" simply designates Congress as the only lawmaking body, 
without indicating in the least what laws may be made. 

The words " in all cases whatsoever " are the only ones which even appear 
to limit the general mandates of the first eight amendments: and here the 
contradiction is in appearance merely. The "all cases whatsoever" must be 
construed to mean all cases in whii-h any legislation is possible. In fact, this 
afflrmativQ grant of general legislative power is limited by the s.amo negative 
mandates which afifect all the other aflirmativo grants to the National Gov- 
■JOil 



eruiiiout. Whatever liiws may be passed— and any may be enacted that are 
not forbidden by the exjjress or the implied negative restrictions of the Con- 
Btitution— Congri'ess is the sole body from which they must issue.— Pomeroi/'s 
Cuimtilatiuuat Lute, pajjcs •lUl, -10:.'. 

In other words, the authority is precisely as I contended, that 
while in the territory when it is first acquired there is no opera- 
tion of the Constitution, because the instrument is not self- 
executing, and while there can not ha any operation of the Con- 
stitution in the Territuries until we provide by legislation the nec- 
essary machinery— while all tliat is true, yet when we do come to 
legislate, we, sitting here as Senators, are bound by the restric- 
tions and limitations of the Constitution and can not disregard 
them: and it is not necessary to the position we have taken in this 
case that any argument to that effect should be made. I have not 
understood that anybody has undertaken to make any such argu- 
ment. 

Mr. Morgan rose. 

Mr. TURNER. Will the Senator from Ohio permit me to in- 
terrupt him now? I have my words before me. 

Mr. FORAKER. I desire first to yield to the Senator from Ala- 
bama. 

Mr. MORGAN. I merely wanted to call the attention of both 
Senators to the fact that no Senator yet has commented upon the 
power derived from the laws of nations contained in this defini- 
tion of the powers of Congress: 

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and 
offenses against the law of nations. 

That puts us under the laws of nations; it gives us all of the 
powers derivable under the laws of nations. When we, by con- 
quest or otherwise, ac(iuire territory from a foreigJi country, the 
laws of nations obtain there, giving to Congress the power to pun- 
ish offenses against them or to control them until we have by act 
of Congress superseded that status and brought them in as a ter- 
ritory in some other light. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2 o'clock having ar- 
rived, it is the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate the un- 
finished business, which will be stated. 

The Secretary. A bill (S. 4792) to amend an act entitled "An 
act to incorporate the Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua,"' 



Z' 



approved February 20, 1889, aud to aid in the construction of the 
Nicaragua Canal. 

Mr. HOAR. I suggest that the unfinished business be infor- 
mally laid aside until the Senator from Ohio has concluded what 
he has to say. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts 
asks unanimous consent that the unfinished business be tempora- 
rily laid aside until the Senator from Ohio has concluded. Is 
there objection? The Cliair hears none, aud the Senator from 
Ohio will proceed. 

Mr. FORAKER. I shall ask the Senate to indulge me but a 
Very few minutes. 

Mr. TURNER. Will the Senatjr allow me to interrnpt him 
just one moment? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly. 

Mr. TURNER. I wish to call the attention of the Senator and 
the Senate to the fact that I did not, I think, misrepresent his 
position with reference to the question to which he addresses him- 
self. My words were: 

I desire to take issue sqiiaroly with the Senator from Connecticut and the 
Scn.ator from Ohio and the Senator from Colorado that the Constitution does 
not take effect ex proprio vigore over the domain of the United States not 
organized into States. 

There is where I stated his position. I understand him to main- 
tain the same position now. and I understand him to be squarely 
opposed by everj' utterance of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

Mr. FORAKER. A clause of the Senator's speech which he has 
not read is the one to which I refer. The one to which I refer was 
made much earlier in his remarks, just after he first alluded to 
my remai'ks here on the lltli instant, and no doubt when the 
Record is printed to-morrow morning it will appear so. The 
declaration he made was that I had contended we could legislate 
with respect to Territories without regard to the Constitution. If 
the Senator will turn back in his manuscript he will find that ho 
made such a statement; and it was because I did not want that 
kind of a statement to go unchallenged, when found in a speech of 
such ability and delivered by a Senator so distinguished in the law 
as the Senator from Washington, that I rose to take exception to it. 

3041 



r-/' 



10 

Ni>\v I want to pass from that, however, and speak of another 
matter about which the Senator has said something. 

Mr. RAWLINS. Mr. Pre.sident 

The PRE-SIDINCt OFFR'ER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from Utah? 

Mr. FORAKER. Certainly, 

Mr. RAWLINS. Do I correctly understand the position of the 
Senator to be that in so far as political privileges like the right of 
voting and holding oflice in a Territory are concerned, because of 
the absence of an act of Congress the people in a Territory do not 
])08sess those privileges, and thereft)re the Senator holds that the 
Constitution does not apply to the Territories in and of itself? 

Mr. FORAKER. Mr. President, there is hardly an excuse for 
the interrogatory the Senator from Utah has prop<ninded to me. 
1 have not said anything even like that. 

Mr. RAWLINS. I wanted 

I\Ir. FORAKER. What I said is that the Constitution of the 
United States does not operate in the Territories of the United 
States until legislative machinery has been supplied to set it in 
motion there. 

Mr. RAWLINS. Now, if the Senator 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator from Utah will allow me, I 
think I can make it plain so that Senators w^ill have no difficulty 
in comprehending what I have contended for. Nobody (luestions 
but that everj'where throughout the Territories of the United 
States citizens of the United States residing there are entitled to 
all the rights and jmvileges and immunities guaranteed by the 
bill of rights. A man is entitled to the writ of habeas cori.us, 
a man is entitled to a tiial by jury, a man is entitled to bear 
arms, a man is entitled to each and ever}' one, I say, of the privi- 
leges and immunities— not stopping further to detail them— guar- 
anteed by the bill of rights. But how can he have the writ of 
habeas corpus; how can he have a trial by jury; how can he have 
an enforcement of any of these rights in the Territory before Con- 
gress has legislated and set these principles of the Constitution in 
motion in the Territory? That is the point I have made. 
Mr. RAWLINS. Now. may I interrupt the Senator? 
Mr. HOAR. ^lay I ask the Senator from Ohio a iiractical ques- 
tion? 

SG41 



n 

Mr. FORAKER. The Seuator from Utah wants to ask me a 
question. 

Mr. RAWLINS. I had not yet completed my question. 

llv. FORAKER. Oh, I beg pardon; I thought the Senator had 
done so. 

Mr. RAWLINS. The point which I desired to make was, that 
no political privileges, snch as the right of franchise, of voting, or 
holding office, aroiuipai'ted to anyone by the Constitution. 

Mr. FORAKER. No. 

Mr. RAWLINS. Therefore, conceding the Constitution and all 
its provisions so far as applicable in force in a Territory, those 
rights would not exist in the absence of legislation. So I under- 
stood the Senator's position to be that all the provisions in and of 
themselves so far as applicable apply to the Territories in the ab- 
sence of legislation except such as I have specified, which are in 
the nature of political privileges. 

Mr. FORAKER. What I meant to say was simply this, that 
until Congress shall legislate so as to set the Constitution in mo- 
tion, these rights belong to the citizens in the Territories in an 
abstract way simply; they can not be reduced to a practical en- 
joyment. The Constitution extends in a certain way, but not in 
a practical and operating way; that is all. It is there in the sense 
that when we iiut it into operation, the citizens of those Terri- 
tories will have all the benefits and all the rights and all the guar- 
anties by it provided. 

Mr. HOAR. I desire to put to the Senator then this practical 
(luestion, if I may. I understand him to say in substance, 
though he said it better than I shall say it now, that while the 
Constitution does not, proprio vigore, extend to the Territories 
until some legislation is put in motion, yet that it does operate 
as a constraint and as a command upon Congress in legislating 
for the Territories. The statement is in form a little different, 
but thnt is the point. 

Mr. FORAKER. The Senator is precisely right. That is what 
I meant. 

Mr. HOAR. Very woll. Now, then, does the Senator hold that 
if we acquire the Philippine Islands by the pending treaty all the 
constitutional provisions, restraints, and commands which apply 
to our domestic Territories will apply to them and will be in 

3Cil 



12 

force as soon as Congress be^jins to legislate for them as commantl- 
ing and constraining Congress? 

Mr. FORAKER. About that there might be very well a dilTer- 
cuce of opinion. I say unhesitatingly yes, so far as all personal 
rights anil privileges ami immunities are concerned. When it" 
comes to the question whether or not customs duties shall be 
made uniform throughout the United States, including the Phil- 
iiil)ines, as wjis contended by the Senator from Washington this 
morning, a different (luestion will arise. 

Mr. HOAR. I inquired with special reference to rights, trial 
by jury, habeas corpus, and no distinction in buffrage on account 
of race or color. 

Mr. FORAKER. I am of opinion that it wouM, as I have said. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio 
permit me to ask him a question? 

Mr MORGAN. I desire to 

Mr. FORAKER. I am talking about a Territory while it is a 
Territory, in which Territory there is no constitutional provision 
ai)plying as to the question of suffrage. 

Mr. HOAR. Whili' it is a Territory unlegislated fur? 

Mr. FORAKER. While it is a Territory and legislated for l)y 
Congress. 

Mr. HOAR. Unlegislated for? 

Mr. FORAKER. I say Congress has plenary power to deal with 
it as it sees fit, save and except only as Congress is rentrained and 
restricted by the bill of rights. 

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, I want to make an appeal to 
Senators to allow me or someone— the Senator from Iowa, prob- 
ably — to take the floor upon the canal bill. There are a number 
of Senators who this evening have to be absent from the city, and 
the Senator from Ohio certainly can find time to-morrow after we 
have disposed of that measure. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me, I .'^hall detain 
the Senate but a moment longer, for I am as anxious as he is to 
take up the canal bill. 

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator from Louisiana has risen to a.sk a 
question to be answered, and there is going to be a lot of them 
asked; and I object. 

utAl 



13 

Mr. FORAKER. What I wanted to say was something per- 
sonal to myself. Yet I shall be glad to answer any question. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I shall not detain the Senate long with the 
question I propose to ask the Senator from Ohio. The treaty is 
not ratified; it is now pending; and suppose that in the interreg- 
num an arrest is made in the Philippine Islands. The President 
of the United States, under the ordinary law and the law of na- 
tions, will govern the country after a military form, and the laws 
of that country, so far as they are not inconsistent with the laws 
of the United States, ^vill be enforced. Suppose a man is indicted 
and prosecuted for some offense, for felony, in the Philippine Is- 
lands, and he is tried and convicted without a court, would the 
Constitution of the United States operate ex proprio vigore in that 
case? 

Mr. FORAKER. Not while there is a military occupation; 
not until we get it into operation there by legislation. That is 
the point I have been insisting upon, 

Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio 
yield to the Senator from South Carolina? 

Mr. MORGAN. I call for the regular order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama calls 
for the regular order, which is the Nicaragua Canal bill. 

Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator indulge me for a moment? 

Mr. MORGAN. I can not consent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will make a state- 
ment. The regular order was laid aside to enable the Senator 
from Ohio to conclude the remarks which he was making at the 
time when the hour of 2 o'clock arrived. The Chair supposes that 
that is the order of the Senate until the Senator from Ohio shall 
have concluded the remarks which he was making at that time. 

Mr. MORGAN. And a good many other Senators have inter- 
fered. 

Mr. TILLMAN. I just 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator from South Carolina will par- 
don me, I would rather have him ask his question a little bit later, 
for I want to get into the Record, without unduly delaying the 
regular order, what among other things I rose specifically to say. 
soil 



H^ 



14 

The Senator from Wasliington made some remarks about what 
was said by me as to the purpose of the Administration with re- 
spect to the Philippine Islands, commenting in that connection 
upon some articles that have appeared in the newspapers, some to 
the effect that I was speaking as the mouthpiece of the Adminis- 
tration and some to the effect that I was not so speaking. I de- 
sire to say here and now, Mr. President, in view of all that has 
been said in the newspapers and here on the floor of the Senate 
what I did not imagine for one moment it was necessary for mo 
to say at the time when I was speaking, that I did not speak here 
for anybody except for myself. I was not speaking for the Ad- 
ministration or as the representative of the Administration; and 
it must be that the chill that went up the backs of our good friends 
over in London was due to the fact, as has been suggested by some 
of the Senators, that there was some confusion as to which one of 
the Senators from Oliio it was who was speaking. [Laughter.] 

Now, one remark further as to what I did .say. I did not say 
that it was the purpose of the Administration or the purpose of 
anybody else to immediately surrender to the people of the Philip- 
pine Islands the control of those islands. I was speaking to a res- 
olution which declared that the Government has no power to ac- 
quire and hold and govern territory as a colony permanently, forever 
and ever, as contradistinguished from the holding and governing 
of a territory as a colony for a less time than permanently, which 
would be temporarily. It had been asserted here in debate, as I 
understood, that it was the purpose of the Administration and the 
purpose of those supporting the Administration to take those islands 
and hold and govern them as a colony by force of arms forever in 
violation of the declaration of that resolution. That is what I was 
speaking to, and the language I employed should be interpreted in 
the light of the resolution which I was discussing. 

But here, Mr. President, is what I said. I did not say anything 
about anybody's present purpose except only as that might be in- 
ferred from the statement I made tliat I knew nobody had the par- 
ticular purpose in mind which had been ascribed to the Adminis- 
tration by those who had spoken in favor of the resolution. I 
R)ad from the Record the very remarks I then made. 

Mr. MORGAN. I again appeal to the honorable Senator from 
Ohio, in view of the fact I have stated to him, that some Senators 

c&ll 



15 

are obliged to leave tlie Chamber, that we sbotild take np the 
regular order, and the Senator may go on and conclude his re- 
marks and make any observations he chooses after that bill is dis- 
posed of. 

Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will let me read for not more 
than three minutes of time, I will then gladly yield. I want to 
put it in in this connection. 

What I said was in reply to interruptions and questions, re- 
peated questions, and there is, therefore, a good deal of repetition 
in my remarks, but the spirit in which I spoke will appear from 
the following. In answer to the Senator from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Hoar], I said: 

I do not uiKlorstand anybody to be proiiosing: to take tbe PLilippino 
Ir^lands with the idea and view of permanently holding them and denying to 
the people there the right to have a government of theii' own if they are ca- 
pable of it and want to establish it. I do not understand that anybody wants 
to do that. I have not heard of anybody who wants to do that. The Presi- 
dent of the United State.s does not, I know, and no Senator in this Chamber 
has made any such statement. 

When I spoke of what I knew of the mind of the President of 
the United States in that particular, I was speaking simply of his 
public declarations and of his official acts as well, all of which 
were in contradiction of the idea that by sword and bayonet and 
shot and shell, as I remarked here in another connection, he meant 
to hold those islands without regard to the conditions that might 
exist there and without regard to whether or not the people of 
those islands consented or objected. 

Speaking again, I said that •• only two things were left" for us 

to do with respect to the Philippines. I was speaking on that 

point. This is my language: 

Only two things were left— to leave them to themselves at ones and retire 
immediately, taking no responsibility whatever for the condition there ob- 
taining, or else take charge of them by cession from Spain, asking the world to 
have confidence in this great Government, which has ever sought to do right, 
that we will deal with them as they should be dealt with. 

I wish to read two other clauses, and then I will gladly yield to 

the Senator from Alabama. In answer to another question from 

the Senator from Massachusetts, I said: 

What I have said in answer to the Senator is in the Eecord, and will show- 
that I do not know of anybody who wants to take possession of the Philip 
pine Islands and govern the people of those isl.-inds indefinitely against their 
will by force of arms. 
3641 



H- 



IG 

Again, in answer to anotlier question from the Senatoi* from 

Massachusetts, I said — all these questions being on the same point 

will account for the repetition — 

I think wbon we come to consider the question of policy with respect to 
the Piiiiippines, the conditions there cxistinpr. their fooling of friendship, or 
their feoliiij,' of consent or of objection, will have much to do with deter- 
ininiuK Conjjress in that respect. I say I do not know of anybody, from the 
President of the United States down to his humblest follower in thin matter, 
who is proposing by force and violence to take and hold those islands for all 
time to come. That is all I can say in answer to the Senator. 

Those extracts which I have read from tlie remarks I made will 
show what it was I had in mind and that what I said was not as 
to a present purpose, but as to the absence of a particular purpose 
that had been ascribed to the Prosident. 
oiiU 

o 



That no franchises or concessions of any kind whatever 
shall be granted by the United States or ^Y any m>h ary 
or other authority whatever in the island of Cuba duiing 
the occupation thereof by the United States. 



SPEECH 



OP 



HON. J. B. FORAKER, 



OF OHIO, 



IN THE 



SENATE OF THE UNITED STATED, 



MARCH 3, 1899. 



WASHINGTON. 

I 899. 



H- 



s r E i: c II 

• IF 

II I) \. .1. i;. ro K A i^' K w 



The- 1 tlu- lull iiiukinKapiiropriations for 

tbi- Ai ;>•. l'Ji«t 

Mr. I'OKAKEU .-jikI; 

Mr. PitlisutK.NT: 1 uUVr the followiug ain<iiiliiiint: 

Anil i>rnvidrit furthrr, Thnt n<> frniicliiHvs or (■<>: .if any kind whiit- 

evi ■• 1 ■" > 1 1 . .1 .. I-..,. . I ^. .. .. I itury or othor iiu- 

t). le, in tlie isliiud of 

Cu: .. . .. ..._ ;.. ., . . . : :.. 

The VICE-HKKSIDKNT. Tlie <iueHtion i« on aK'reeing t*) the 
aiiieiiiliuciit ; 1 by th >r from 0}iio. 

Mr. F(.)KA' Mr. I'l ,:. wiutv tlmt aitieiKlment was 

proposed a few tlays a^o there has been so much in the newsna- 
pers alK)nt there Ix'ing no occasion for it tliat I desire to read a 
few i)ara;,'rapiis fruiu tlie Kveniii>^ Star of February 10. It is an 
account of a new board that has bten apixiinted, called the ad- 
visory board ill siiiiH" lilaci ■, anl iii i.th' rs culled the colonial board. 
It says: 

The ' .mil ro;- -' n tax- 

ation. ; icii-o iH ' -U In 

tl).. T . •.. ,.f r, ,,,.w 

Wl: .1-. 

beeu siitiug. 

So It goes on. It next de.scril es the scoih? of the inquiry as cov- 
ering all kinds of franchises, enuineratiuK street railroads, elec- 
tric lights, etc. I ask, in order that I may save time, that the 
portion I have marked may be in8«'rted in the Recohu. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. There l)eing no objection, that will 
be the order. 

The article referred to is as follows: 

KOO.MS OF THK IIOAKD. 

The t)oar<l appointed by the Prf-idfiit t^ ■ :n\-r'^ri;;n,tr> nnd report urion taxa- 
tion. friinc-niHcs. and i:<»K' - cHtahliHlied in the 
Lemon buildine. Thf li . .^ tln-y now o<Tui)y 
on tbt.- s«-cond rfinir will be v:ii.uti-a ti^ day, uud till- 1j :urd ln-rciiftor will use 
the third floor suite, in whic-h the war mvesti^'atiui; eomnii.sHioti hu-s txsen 
sitting. 

Mr. Curtis ha-s not yet rep<->rted for duty. l<ut hi.s colleatfues, Mefwrs. Ken- 
nf.,lv -.I..! w-.'i-i.i.- "••'•'••• I."-'- t.. , lay with a nuniljer of clerks, cla-ssifyinif and 
fil i inil ooucessiuns and receiving personal fulh 

in ' 

The ijoard h Cain tir ~ of a compet'-nt SjjanishBneakinii 

clerk to act as i i i-. and to •• its force of clerk.i who will accom- 

pany the lx)ard lu u, fuw days. Thu aiart for Cuba will be made within a 
we^-K or ten days. 

THE SCOPE or l.VyllRY. 

The scope of their inquiry '•omi>r<»h»nd>' hII mfttters referred to them by 
the Sei-retary of War for iir. ■ iiiendation. Only subjects 

relat«-<l to civic admini><tr,i' 1. and the l><>ard will not 

touch upon anythinp rvlatiiij,' i" ■"•■ hiii:wu\ i U'-se include que-ttions con- 
cerning the judiciary, the assessment and collection of tuxes; the gi anting of 

2 804/7 



3 



T^ntAtitfl thrt B&le or eift of franchises, either local or interprovincial; railway 
??In°5treerc!lr Une «>ncessions, electric light and other municipal monopo- 

T'^^r, oil f>i<.ap fhf hoard will in duo time report to the Secretary of War, 
but tCy'^fiv^e'nVpower to i:, mure thun to formulate recommendations for 
the guidance of the President and Secretary Alger. 

PLANS OF THE BOARD. 

General Kennedy, of the lx>ard. gave to a Star reporter today the following 
'°^"AM.n-«ent we are called the advisory board, but I believe that in time 

islands. ^^^^ aimm.icatioss kou concessions. 

•• Vory manv applications have been reforr.'d to us by Se^*'**'"'; ^JK^f/°f 
AH.si't u^ s"K.t I v M.ikl-john. ;ind not a few c-ill^ have been made by ap- 
AM,sist.ini . LTtuiij •",'"•■'. f,,,. ,,.ji„ts of franchises and concessions 
S/n'm'Zio •>'".„ sy 1 -a .Tbut V.l.^na.ior.ty are from ••orp..nUions a - 
r.^ n.iv -^tabbHh.'d 1 the island. Nothing will be d.mo with any of those until 
wt^hL-;^t',:„:rov.!;the gi-oun.l and carefully looked into the advantages or 
disudvaiiUik'cs of each. 

Mr HOAR. I most beartilv concur with the Semitor's purpose 
in offeriiiL' th.' auiendinent. I .If sire to ask him what siguihcance 
he puts to th.. plirase - for whicli the UnU^-d Stat.-s is responsi- 
ble'" Would it not be well to strike out those words and say • no 
franchises sliall be granted by the L'nited States.- 

Mr Fv )RAKER. Probably so: but I wanted to make it explicit, 
for tiie United States is maintaining a military occupation there 

"'air HOAR. It makes it less explicit with those words in. I 
think it would be made stron-er by simply sayin- that no trau- 
chi.sc-s whatever shall be granted by the United States. 

Mr F< )R \KER. I do not object to striking that out, but 1 say 
nolianchiseshallbegrant.Ml by the United States or by any au- 
thority for which the United States is respon.sible. having refer- 
ence to those put in authority over the provinces there. 

Mr HO\R But suppose some court or public othcial should 
sav that a franchise granted by the United States incurring no 
tuVther responsibilitv to maintain it or to do anything about it is 
not a franchi.se for which the United States is responsible That 
would be a chance to destroy almost entirely the Senator s puipose. 

Mr. FORAKER. I accept the amen Iment. 

Mr HOAR It seems to me that an absolute statement that no 
franchises sliall be granted clinches it. That is my proposition. 

Mr. SEWELL. Mr. President 

Mr FORAKER. Let me have the amendment so amendea. 

Mr SEWELL. I have something to say about it. 

Mr. FORAKER. 1 have no objection to the Senator proceed- 
ing. I wanted to amend the amendment. 

Mr SEWELL. I understand there have been no franchises 
CTanted If there had been, this amen.lment has nothing to do on 
a pure and simple appropriation bill to pay the othcers and men 
of the Army and furnish supplies. I make the point of order 
against the amendment. 



Mr. FORAKER. In answer to that- 



The VICE-PRESIDENT. Upon what grounil is the point of 
order made? On the j^round that it is not relevant? 

Mr. SEWELL. On tlic umnnd that it is not ijiruuine to tlie bill. 

Mr. CHANDLER. I hope the Senator from Ohi.i will fix the 
aniendnuMit as he wants it before it is deli.itiMl. 

Mr. F()RAKER. I aj^rree to strike ont, if I may have consent, 

from the amendment as I ofTen-d it the words " for which the 

United States is responsible." The amendment will now read: 

That no fraiicliisos or concessions of any kind whiiti'vor Hhiill i>i' jfriiiittHl 
by the L'nit<><l .Stiit'-w. or l>y any military or othi<r authority wliati-ver, in tho 
iHlaud of t'tilia iluriiit; thf occupntion thereof by tho United .States. 

Let it Ijo read at the desk. 

The VICE-PR ESI DENT. Tlio amendment will be read as mod- 
ified. 
The Secketary. At the end of the bill in.sert: 

Antt jiriii ''i.r, Tli;i' 'lis of any kind what- 
ever «li:ill 1. IbvtiK-i iiiary orotlu-rautlior- 
itv :■ HI the itiland ot Cuba Jurin^ thu uccupation thereof by the 
I'll ■•>«. 

Mr. MoRCAN. Mr. Pre.sident 

Mr. SEW ELL. 1 now object to the amendment on the f^eund 
that it has never been committed to a standin.,' committee or re- 
ported from one of the standini; committees of the Senate. 

Mr. Lodge, lint the point of order dofs not apply, because 
the amendment does not increase the appropriation or make a new 
item. 

Mr. CHANDLER. It is a mere limitation on tho military .lu- 
thoritv. for which millions of dollars are a])propriatrd in this act. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Tlie .inestion of relevancy tlie Chair 
will submit to the Si nate. Is the amendment in order? [Putting; 
the question.] The amendment seims to be in order. It is de- 
clared to be in order. The ijuestion is on agreeing to the amend- 
ment. 

Mr. BURROWS. Mr. President, it seems that this amendment 
is ba.sed on a rejiort imbli.shed in the Star of this city. 

Mr. FORAKEK. And num-rous other papers contain .similar 
reports. 

Mr. BITIROWS. I allude only to what the Senator referred 
to — the Star. If I rememl er correctly, some time since a i-esolu- 
tionw ■ dcaninLCUpon the War Department to report whether 

any fr. - had been granted to any parties in ( 'uba. That re- 

port declares that none had been granted. 1 di'sire simply to state 
that in communication with the War Dei)artment to-day I was in- 
formed that no franchises had been granted m those islands to 
anybotly. and more than th.it. that an order had been issued l)y 
the War Department that none must be granted. 

Mr. MORtiAN. I think this is very dangerous legislation. I 
ask the lawyers of this Ixnly. who are supposed to understand the 
meaning of legal phrases, what is a franchise? Well, a corpora- 
tion is a franchise. An authority to sell whisky is a franchise. 
An authority to vote is a franchise. There is a vast multituiie of 
licenses and other indulgences that are classed Ijy the law writers 
as franchises. 

Now, the time is rapidlj' approaching. I trust it is very close at 

hand, when the Government of the United States, represented 

by the President, the President exercising in Cuba and other 

places his military power, will be able to make a transfer of the 

:U)7 



military rule, of the dominion there, into the hands of civil power; 
but in order to do that it is very obvious that at some time or 
other there must be an a.scertainment of public will in respect to 
the chan,i?e of government from the military to the civil form, 
the military form 1)einf? in the hands of the United States, the civil 
form being in abeyance at the present time. 

It is intended to be ultimately vested in the people of Cuba, ac- 
cording t'-) such expression as tliey ma)' see proper to make in 
that behalf. It is therefore inevitable, under our system of pro- 
cedure at least, and under all the conceptions we have of free 
government, that when this transfer is to take place it must be 
done by a plebisrite or by some form of vote, and the President 
of the United States, as a military commander, must, at some 
time or other, by some agreement or arrangement he may make 
with the civil authority there, say: "I will prescribe to you a form 
of voting. I will con'er upon certain ])ersons here the franchise 
to vote upon this ([uestion of the clianging of civil government. 
I will not confer it upon women, 1 will not confer it upon aliens, 
I will not confer it upon those who have borne a bad moral char- 
acter, b)' service in the penitentiary or otherwise, or upon jjersons 
wljo can not, for instance, re.ad tjr write. 1 will prescribe the 
qualifications of the voters by a plebiscite that is to take this mili- 
tarj- government out of my hands and place it into the hands of 
tlie people." Now, there is a franchise. It is an express fran- 
chise, given to the individual man. 

Mr. .MAS(1N. Mr. Presi lent 

Mr. MURtxAN. This amendment, as we have it here now, for- 
bids the President of the United States to do that. So I think it 
is a very dangercjus piece of legislation. 

J\Ir. MASON. Will the Senator yield for a question? 

Mr. MORGAN. More than that, Mr. President, it is prema- 
ture. It is unnecessary for us at this moment of time, and par- 
ticularly in the agitated state of public sentiment in the island of 
Cuba, to commence making provisions of law which are to control 
those people. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama 
yield to the Senator from Illinois for a (luestionV 

Mr. MORGAN. I did not hear the question. I can bai-ely hear 
myself. 

Mr. FORAKER. Will the Senator from Alabama allow me to 
interrupt him at this point? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes. 

i\Ir. MASON. That is all right. I yield to the Senator from 
Ohio. 

Mr. FORAKER. I will wait until the Senator concludes then. 

Mr. MORGAN. If any Senator wants to ask me a question, 
all right. 

Mr. ^lASON. I desire to ask the Senator a ciuestion, if it does 
not interrupt him. 

Mr. MORGAN. Well, what is it? 

Mr. MASON. The (juestion is simply a mere matter of practice 
or law. Do you state that under the resolution by which we took 
possession of the island of Cuba anj- commissioner of the United 
States or the United States itself can grant a perpetual franchise 
that will be landing ui^on the people of Cuba? 

Mr. MOR(tAN. Not at all. But there are franchises which the 
President of the United States can confer upon them, and which 



6 

nobody else can confer. This franchise inchides all those privi- 
leges, rights, opportunities, or whatever they may be. that will- 



Mr. MASON. As I understand the amendment, it only seeks 
to make the limitation tip to the time we part with the island of 
Cuba. What objection can there be to it? 

Mr. MORGrAN. That is very true, but my argument refers to 
the time, method, and manner of parting with Cuba, the way of 
getting rid of it and getting this authority out of our hands, 
which in its character now is military, and getting it into the 
hands of civil i^ower. 

Mr. MASON. As I understand the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Ohio, he only seeks that there shall be a limitation 
which shall expire with our parting with the military title of 
Cuba. Do you seek anything different from that? 

Mr. MORGAN. I think I do. I think I see enough in the 
meaning of the word " franchise '' to put us in a very bad position. 

Mr. MAS(JN. I simply wanted to understand the Senator. 

Mr. MORGAN. 1 think it would put us in a very dotibtful 
attitude on this question, and I say it is premature. We recog- 
nize the fact that in the island of Cuba there are qtiite a number 
of people who are more anxious to cut each other s throats than 
they are to do any benefit to mankind. 

Mr. MASON. Do you mean among the major-generals or the 
brigadier- generals in our Army? 

Mr. MORGAN. I am talking about those members who often 
are talking in assemblies. What is the assembly called there? 
I forget now. 

Mr. MASON. Yoti mean Cubans and not Americans? 

Mr. MORGAN. I mean Cubans and Spaniards. I passed through 
this. Mr. President. It is not a strange sensation or experience, 
either, to me. 1 have seen the time when my State was required 
to give obedience to military rule, and that when a war was not 
jirevalent in the United States — when it had been closed; but it 
was a necessary movement. 

It was necessary in order to keep men from doing violence to 
each other. It is the hardest task we have, and about the only 
one we have in Cuba to-day, to prevent those men from cutting each 
other "s throats, resulting from the difficulties that occurred dur- 
ing the war. It is the natural state of the human mind after a 
great war is over to seek vengeance, and we are there not only as 
peacemakers, but we are going to have peace there if we have to 
fight for it. 

Mr. MASON. You are going to have peace if you have to fight 
for it? 

Mr. MORGAN. Yes: we are going to compel it. We do not 
intend to permit, and we can not decently and with self-respect 
permit, any of those men to cut each other "s throats in that coun- 
try and destroy property and the like of that while we are exer- 
cising territorial dominion there. 

Now, that being so. we had better let this matter alone and let 
the President of the United States go on and exercise his proper 
power under the laws of the United States, for those are the Jaws 
that regulate his conduct there. I grant you the Constitution of 
the United States restrains him, because he is an officer of our 
Government, but the basis of legal procedure that the President 
of the United States is authorized to act upon in tuba are the 
laws of nations, and under the laws of nations he has got the right 
as the Commander in Chief there of the military forces of occu- 
3807 



pation to prescribe the methods and the instrumentalities through 
which civil law shall be administered. 

Mr. CAFFERY. Will the Senator from Alabama permit me 
to ask a question? 

iMr. MORGAN. Certainly. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I understand the Senator from Alabama to 
say that the United States have military occupancy of the country. 

Mr. MORGAN. We all know that. 

]\Ir. CAFFERY. And I know you all know it. I say I under- 
stand you to say so. 

Mr. MORGAN. I do say so. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I want to know from the Senator whether 
that military occupancy gives the United States the sovereignty 
over the island? 

Mr. MORGAN. Now we have got to the old debating-society 
question about what is sovereignty, how it is to be divided up, 
and how many different elements exist in sovereignty. 

Mr. CAFFERY. I do not ask about what sovereignty is, but 
who has the sovereignty? 

Mr. MORGAN. It is the power of ruling without appeal. That 
is the sovereignty. That man or that body of men who have the 
power to rule without the right of appeal from that authority to 
some other power is sovereign. He may be a military sovereign 
or he may be a civil sovereign. The sovereignty of the United 
States is existent in the island of Cuba to-day. and it has a repre- 
sentative there in the major-general who is in command particu- 
larly: but the flag that floats there signifies the supremacy of the 
Government of the United States over any other government that 
is in Citba, or that ever has been there. 

That is our situation in regard to the matter of sovereignty. 
Whether we can define it or not. we have an emblem there that ex- 
presses it. That flag expresses the whole thing. Under that flag 
General Brooke commands in a military way, and he does what 
you did with us in the South. He employs the civil establishment 
in that country for the purpose of preserving peace, law, order, 
property, life, and liberty to the extent that it is granted to the 
people there, and it is a perfectly just thing in him to do it. 

It is sanctioned by all the international law and sanctioned also 
by our example through many years here, while the controversy 
waxed so warm as that men "could scarcely contain themselves 
when talking about it on this floor and out amongst the people. 
But now the sovereign power is there; I do not care whether you 
call it military power or civil power; it makes no difference what 
you call it. The right of rule without appeal is there, and that is 
in the hands of the United States. 

Now, we want to get rid of it. We assumed it for a certain 
definite, fixed, and announced purpose. We have never in the 
slightest degree cast a suspicion upon out purpose and intention 
of carryingit into honest and sincere effect and operation, and 
the quicker we can do it the better for all concerned. But it is 
dangerous to do it to-day. When the assembly of Cuba makes a 
question with General Gomez about his receiving through the 
United States, if you ijlease, .$8,000,000 to be paid into the hands 
of the Cuban soldiery through the United States instead of re- 
ceiving it directly and in virtue of their own right out of thetreas- 
sury of Cuba — when they make a question of that kind with Gen- 
eral Gomez and get into a great tumult about it, almost as bad 
as the French Assembly, and when things of that sort go on in 

3807 



8 

Cal)a, we had better take a firm stand here and not make bows 
ami coupees to them, ami say to them: "Obedience to the law is 
thf tirst duty you have jj;ot to learn, aiul until > ou havt* ditne that 
and have acconiplisheil it to such a satisfactory extent that we 
can see the life, liberty, and jiroperty of Spaniards, nesrues, or 
anybody else reasonably safe in Cuba we are going to hold our 
aominion over you." 

Now, I do not care about entering into definitions or distinc- 
tions or Hnespun theories about this business. It is tlie practical, 
everyday duty, antl I want tlie President of the United Stales to 
have, unnbriilged by the action of Congress, all tlie power that he 
jjossosses under the laws of nations, to rule in that land untd we 
get ready to turn the auUiority over to those i)eople. I tlnnk the 
amendment is unfortimate in having the word '• franchise"' in it. 

Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Mr. President, wiiat is the neces- 
sity for this action by Congress? If I believed tliat there was any 
disposition or intention on the part of the Administration, or any- 
body connected with it. to issue or grant any corporate jirivileges 
in Cuba. I would vote for this amendment, liut. Mr. Presiilent, I 
do ni)t believe it. EverythiuLf tliat has been done by this Admin- 
istration and by anyotie connected with tlie Administration from 
the time we Itegan military occupation in Culta to this time dis- 
proves any insinuation that there is any such intention. 

Now, Mr. President, a re.solution was sent to the War Di'part- 
nient to know wliether any coritoratc i)rivilegesor conce.-sionshad 
lM?en granted. The reply to that resolution was that there liad 
been none. Tliere has been an order issued by the War Di.'part- 
ment to the authorities in Cuba directing that there shall Ix* none 
gr.mted, and I think 1 am justified in saying that there is no in- 
tention of granting any by the President, by the Secretary of War, 
by tlie advi.sory lioard. or l.y any jicrsons in authority in Cul)a. 

That being the ca.se, we are asked, on the authority of an irre- 
sponsible newspai>er statement, to gravely pa.ss an act here that no 
one shall have authority to do that. There would be just as much 
propriety in putting on at the end of this bill a provision that no 
oflicer .sh(Mild s(iuander any of the money which is ajipropriated 
in the bill. To pass an amendment of this sort is a direct cliarge 
or an insinuation that somebody intends to do it, and therefore I 
propose to vote against it. 

Mr. FORAKEK. Mr. Pre.sident. there seems to be an undue 
sensitiveness about this amendment, and running through all 
these si)eeches there is an intimation that something is insinuated 
which is of a character that will reflect upon somebody by the 
mere offering of it. 

Mr. President, 1 disclaim anj' such intention. We have a right, 
it seems to me, to speak upon such a subject as this without hav- 
ing any improper motive attributed to us. I resent the insinua- 
tion that there is any improper motive to be attributed. As a 
full justification of the action of presenting the amendment I call 
attention again to the newspaper article that has already been 
put in the Rkciihd, and I des-.re to read very briefly from it. 

It \vill show that this action is not premature, as was said by 
the Senator from Alabama, and it will show conclusively that 
those having authority with respect to Cuba have expressed an 
intention to grant franchises in that island. There is not any 
question alniut the truthfulness of this statement. Nobody ever 
denied anything contained herein. This is only one. as 1 said a 
3a07 



while ago, of a number of statements and a number of mterviews. 
What I shall read in a moment comes from an interview with the 
president of this advisory board. He states here all the duties of 
that board, and I do not know wliere else to learn them. You 
can not go to any statute and find what are the duties of that 
board. 

Tliere is no statute by which that board is created expressly. 
There is no statute defining the power of that board. It is a board 
ai)i)oiuted by the President in the exercise of the power belouijing 
to him while a military occupation is being maintained in these 
various islands. It is a board not appointed by him with the ad- 
vice and consent of the Senate. We know of its e.xistence. we 
know of its i)ower only as the board itself has seen fit to proclaim 
it. Now. here is what the president ol this board says. I submit 
it is sufificient to show that this h-gislation is not premature and 
not without excuse, if it be at all appropriate legislation. 

Mr. .SPOONER. Wiiat is the date of that arlicle':' 

Mr. FOHAKEIi. The U>th day of February. It came out in 
the paper just abuut the time, I think, that th^' answer was made 
to the resolution which was passed by the Senate asking for iu- 
formation on this subject. I do not remember that the answer to 
tliat resolution went any furthrr than simply to say that no fran- 
chises have been granted heretofore. I did not know that anybody 
claimed that any had been. 

The question is not as to the past. Mr. President, but it is as to the 
future. When we find those exercising authority by appointment 
of the Prt sident proclaiming their intention in this regard, it is 
time for tht- Senate (jf the United States, and the Congress of the 
United States, to express an opinion on the subject, if it have any 
opinion to express. 

Here let me call attention to the fact that we have been invited 
by the President him.self tolegislate in regard to this matter. In his 
Bdston .speech he announced not only to the Congress of the United 
States, but to the whole country, that the rt'.spon.sibilities of the 
war were now to pass to Congress; that it was for Congress to say 
what should be done in those islands. He shifted from himself 
all responsibility in regard to them. It seems to me. therefore, 
if a (juestion arise with respi'ct to any one of those islands and we 
want to express a policy in regard th'-reto. it is certainly our right 
to do so without having somebody imi)Ute to us a motive that is 
offensive. 

Mr. HALE. Is the Senator so innocent that he supposes be- 
cause of general declarations all of the subject of these outlying 
ces.sions are to be left to Congress, there is to be any legislation to 
that end? Does he not know that while that has been the general 
declaration, whenever any attempt is made for action on the part 
of Congress, it is opjiosed and contravened and stifled? 

Mr. FORAKER. I do not know to what x)articular attempt 
the Senator from Maiuf^ reiers. I do know, however, that when 
this matter is propost d there is opi»osition. I do not see why 
there should be. But now let me read from the article. 

Mr. HALE. Let me say to the Senator that I am surprised he 
does not see the programme is the otlier way: that there is to be 
no act on the part of Congress: that Congress is to adjourn and 
let every attempt which has been made to make a declaration of 
polic}' by Con-.rress be opposed and thwarted and destroyed. 

Mr. FORAKER, I did not expect to have occasion to go so far 
3807 



COI: 

v«-. 

tratK'i. 








l to th. : 

Utily 


I caii 


1 i i< 


11 Ui 111 


I in- 


.^fii.iii 'I 


iii,;v -.1 


ii 


•,.,1 t .. 


Ivi.' 


.1 !:,.il.i-' 



10 

as that, and I should very much rej^rot to think that there is a tlis- 
po^ition nn the part of the Administration to prevent Congress 
annouiuiiig a policy witli respect to these islands. 

Now, Mr. President, let nie not he diverted from reading here 
as a jnstitication for the olfering of this amendment further from 
the interview. 

Tlio s.-iii>i- of their iuqiiiry — 

Sjjeakint; of this board— 

r.'tary of War for in- 
iti'il to i-ivic iidiiiiulH- 

ii'jiu Aiiiti.iiiia to that — 

iMti.i'i will 1 .n -i l.'i-i'.r 11I..I 'hi> 

-: ol iMtoulH, lUt> MUM ui' tiUl u( Irttuctilttwii, ullli<.-t' l>j\:ai or iiil<-i- 

Now stop and think. Mr. President, what is meant by an '* in- 
terprovincial" franchise. It means tlie ;,'riintinjf of a franchis • to 
build a railro.id or some other kind oi hii/hway. I imagine, across 
that island: and if so. tht-n I am i to the I'lnted Stat-s 

entering into any such biiHiiiess in .nd of ('ii)ia, where our 

occupation is to bo temporary. 

Mr. .M<)H(tAN'. The Senator is u n rt aani;.; irom his amend- 
ment, but he is readiii;,' from a newspaper. 

Mr. F< )RAKKU. I sui»pi)8e I have a right to read what I st-e fit 
to reatl. 

Mr. M( »R(tAN. All right. iJnt when you come to inform the 
Senate on the ijuestion as to what your amendment means, tlie 
newspaper article will not furnish the e.\planatioii. 

Mr. Ft)RAKEH. No: I am not talking about tliat. I am to l,o 
the judge as to what I shall sjty in my remarks t<j the Senat*'. 1 
am speaking now. not of my amendment, but I am speaking for 
myself: and 1 am undertaking to s]ieak to the Si-nate unon that 
which moved mo to offer the amendment, in answer to the claim 
of the ^ from A" that it ispremature and uncalled for. 

Mr. " I AN. .\ iig a judge, we are all judges for that 

matter, and we are judging the .Senators amendment, not by a 
newspaper statement, but from what the Senator says. 

Mr. FOKAKER. The Senator declined to permit me to inter- 
rujtt him a moment ago unl- ' uld confine myself to a simple 
inciuiry. I did not want to . ry much of his time, Itut only 

wanted to call attention to ths. and he would not give me the op- 
IK)rtunity.and so 1 want to do it now: 

Local or interprovincial— 

Now, listen — 
rail rits, street-car line concessions. ele<'trlc light, and other tnnnicipal 

In other words, if that kind of a programme is to be entered 
upon, it means that the United States will not get out of Cuba in 
a hundred years. 

Mr. HALE. Of course it will not. 

Mr. F( >KAKER. And never will get out of Cuba. I hope, for 
one. to see the United States withdraw from that occupation ami 
let the people of that island establish an independent government 
of their own. as we have promised. an<l I hope it can be done at 
no distant day. 

38117 



11 

Now, further this interview says: 

At present we are called the advisory board, hnt I believe that in time 
some more suitable designation will he found. 

" In time." How much time.- This year or next year? This is 
the president of the board who speaks. Is he not one in authority? 

W<- are expectin;,'— 

Now listen to this— 

We are exjx'ctiii^' to be joined at once by Mr. Curtis, the now appointee, 
and then wi- will orjjaiiiz.- and jx-rfect the details of our work. Wo are hunt- 
in^f for a SiianishsiMakinn clerk to act as translator, but wo find it hard to 
accompli.-^h. I do not know how lariji' a forre of clerks will accompany us. 

This is to Cuba. He ma<le that statement before starting to 

Cuba: 

The start will 1h' made soon— within a weok < t ten days. W<' will ro direct 
to Havana in order to avoid the sickly season. Then wo will visit every 
port, larjre city, and province on the island. 

I have rfa<l enough to .show his declaration as to tlie power his 
board is to exf-rcisc. Are we not entitled, Mr. Presidt-nt 

Mr. M.\S( )N. What -s the title ol the board? 

Mr, FOKAKICR. Tiie •advisory board," he says they are called 
now, but some time in the future he hopes to get some other name 
which will be more suitable. 

Mr. ST f:\VAKT. Who is the presi.lent of the board? 

Mr. F(>RAKP:ii, Tli.- pnsident of the board is Gen. Robert P. 
Kennedy, of Ohio, a njan of intelligence, selected by the President 
to be the presiding ofiicer of this board. Is he not to be presumed 
to under.-^tiind the powers which the President wants him to 
exerci.se? 

Mr. PLATT of Tonnecticut. I am sorry to hear the Senator 
from Ohio say that the president of that l>>ard is a man of intel- 
ligence after he reads that statement, if it be true that it is an in- 
terview with him. 

Mr. FORAKEli. Well. Mr. President, I do not mean to criti- 
cise General Kennedy. 1 assume that he was sjieaUing according 
to his instruetions, and for that reason I do not think tiiere is 
anything lo justify what the Senator trom Connecticut has said. 
General Kennedy certainly understands, or should understand, 
w^hat he has been chosen to do. 

Now, listen further as to the character of these franchises. He 

says: 

Vorv many applications have lx»en referred to us by .Secretary Alger and 
Assistant .Secretar.v Moiklojohn. and not a few calls have boon made by ap- 
idicants in j>ors(>n. A few roiiuests for grants of franchises and concessions 
are fr">in Anifrican syndicates. ))Ut the majority are from corporations 
already established on" the island. Nothing will bo dono with anv of those 
until wo have goneover the ground and carefully looked into the advantages 
or disadvantages of each. 

There is an officer of the Government— I suppose he Is an officer, 
and that he has taken an oath, and no doubt is drawing a salary 
and has all the muniments of office. There is the president of this 
board telling us that the board at an early day is to start to Cuba 
and thtse various islands. 

I am told by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. GeaeI who sits near 
me that the "board has already gone. I do not know whether 
that is the ca.se or not, but I have a right toa.ssuine, when we read 
this in the newspapers and see no contradiction of it. that the 
board is expected to exercise the character of power here described, 
and that the board is at an early day to set about doing it. 

I desire to protest against it. and I think the eflfective way of 
protesting against it is to legislate against it; to legislate that we 
3807 



12 

do not want the f^rantinj^ of any franchises, either inttTurovincial 
or otherwise, in the ishiml of Cuba. We want to pacify the ishind, 
then reco!j;nize a K"Vernment established by tin- i)ei)i)le of that 
island, and then Virin.: our Iroujis home: and the (jnicker we can 
do it the better 1 think it wdl be for us. and tlie better for the 
island, too. 

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President 

Mr. FoKAKER. .Mr. President, one word further, and then I 
will yield with pleasure to the Senator from Massachusetts. 

The Senator from Alabama made a stroni; poiut in delinition to 
show that the word "franchise" was so broad tluit it mii,'ht pre- 
vent the conferrini,' of the elective franchi.se. I do not know that 
that is contemplated. But however that may be. all the dillicul- 
ties sugfjested by the Senator from Alabama on aiconnt of his 
del'nition of the word • francliise ' can lie obviated by ))utlingone 
word in this amendment, as he will agree with me, and that is by 
saying ••proi)erty friinchises or concessions." I will ask consent 
to put in this amemlment. before the word "franchises," the 
word "iiroiiertv.'" Tiieii it will read "propertv franchises." 

The Mci:-PKESIUJ:XT. The amendment of the Senator from 
Ohio will l>e modihed in the mann«'r suggested by him. 

Mr. LODCtE. Mr. President. 1 did not intend to .say a .single 
word in regard to this amendment. I intende«l simply to vote fur 
it: but I mo.st decline to l)e juit in the position in which I think 
the Senator from Connecticut puts those of us who supiiort the 
amendment. 1 can not see that that amendment retjeets on any 
human being. We are luld that no franchises have been given, 
and none are to be given. Very well; then we are carrying out in 
a statute the declared policy already agreed ujum. 

Mr. President, it seems to me of the last import:ince that Con- 
gress shoulil say by statnt--. and say to all the world, that while 
we are holding the.se islands by military authority, we are not 
going to bave them e.\])loit''d for commercial purjioses. I do not 
believe in hampering the President in the slightest way, either in 
the military or the i)olit!cal department with which he is engageil. 

I should object very much at this t.nie. i>n our insufficient 
knowledge, to interfere with him: but the story li:t.s gone abroad 
from the interview, which has been read here, witli the chairman 
of the advisory commission, from whicli it appears that men are 
running eagerly forward to get franchises in Cuba. If the coun- 
try is still in that unsettled condition, as I believe it is. and it is 
necessary to maintain military rule there, it is not in a fit condi- 
tion for a board or a commission or anybody else to enter uiion 
the granting of franchises. 

I want. Mr. President, above all things, that whatever islands 
we hold or whatever islands we part with, when we start the gov- 
ernment of those islands we shall be free, absolutely tree, from the 
slightest suspicion even that there is jobbery or corruption or that 
we are trying to get into those Islands to exploit for the benefit of 
individuals or of corporation.s. It will be time enough when Con- 
gTe.ss is thoroughly informed to make suitable laws in the islands 
which we retain for the establishment of corporations and the 
granting of franchises. It is not the time to do it now. 

I believe. Mr. Presiilenr, that we are carrying <mt tue policy of 
the Administration, that we are strengthening the hands of the 
Department and of the President, when we put firmly into the 
statute law the declaration that there shall be no granting of com- 
mercial franchises and concessions until a legally ordered govern- 



13 

ment. a constitutional government, either under our auspices or 
the auspices of the people tliemselves. is established in Cuba or in 
any other island that has passed into our hands. 

I want to see this amendment go upon the bill, because I want 
to Sii}- plainly to all the wor.d a^icl to all speculators and to all ad- 
venturers who are trying to get concessions or franchises there 
that th;it business is not going on while we hold military authority; 
that It is not to lie done until those people have a legal, constitu- 
tioual, and pniper government. I think that is a just and a right- 
eous action lor the United St'ites to take. 

I object. Mr. President, to having it suggested that those of ns 
who believe in the esta^ilishment of this policy are therefore op- 
posing the Administration. Who is there here that says we are 
opposing the policy of the Adminisi ration because we forbid fran- 
chises and concessions to be granted by commissions or by the 
military authority? 

We ai'e toid in one and the same breath that that is the precise 
policy of the Admini.stration. and j-et that it is a reflection upon 
somebody bi cause we embodied that policy in a statute. That is 
just the place it ought to be. Mr. Presiilent— in a statute— so there 
can be no (juestion anywhere as to the attitiide of the United 
States — not merely as to the attitude of the Administration, but 
as to the attitude of (.'ougre.-s. which has its own respon.silnlity in 
these matters, and which is just as much entitled to have its opin- 
ion on a case like this as anyone el.se. and it is as important to deal 
with that now as it is. in my judgment, to lea. e to the President 
absolute freedom in all military and jioliiical matters. 

Mr. Fli YE. I yielded the right of way on the conference report 
on the river and liarlior bill in order that two bills, the deficiency 
and the Army ai>propriation bills, might be disposed of. Now, it 
is working along into the night, and the river and harbor confer- 
ence report is a very long one. If ihere is any iltsire on the part 
of the ^^enate that the river and harbor bill shall become a law, I 
trust there will be no more debate on the.se amendments. 

Mr. SPOONER. I want to say only a word. It is difficult for 
me to see the theory upon which this amendment is either pro- 
posed or defended. Our occupation of Cuba is, of course, a tem- 
l)orary occupation. No one iias any warrant for the assumption. 
I think, that it is intended to be otherwise than a temporary oc- 
cupation. It is a militarj- occupation. It is an occupation from 
the standpoint of <luty in time of war. 

The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Morgan] stated the law as it 
iindoubtedly is when he said that all the power which the Presi- 
dent of the United States has in Cuba to-day is a power which he 
does not derive from Congress, but which he derives from the 
Constitution, which decl.ires him Commander in Chief, and his 
power as Commander in Chief he obtains from the laws of war. 

We can not legislate for Cuba. Even if the treaty ^^^th Spain 
were ratilied Cuba could not be legislated for by Congress. The 
sovereignty of Cuba is not proposed to be ceded to the United 
States. The only power we have there is military power, which, 
under the declaration of Congress, no man can or will dare to turn 
his back upon, nor will Congress turn its liack upon it, for it 
would be dishonoring the military power of the United States in 
that island. 

The President does not derive, as I said l.efore. his power as 
a military commander from Congress, nor can Congress take 
away irom him any of the powers which, as Commander in Chief 

3807 



14 

under the laws of war in time of wur. h<' is eytitlwl to exercise. 
There may be franehises, I Jo not know })ut franchises fsstMitiuUy 
of a temporary kind, to Im* exerciM'tl untl«r tin- cminjl of the mil- 
itary jM.wer. whiili mi^'ht he of iiit^-re^t to tlie health of the t-om- 
m unity. 

1 can imftKiiie a variety of circumstances uinler whuh a mere 
temporary j^ant of franchise under military control ou;;ht to be 
j,'raiited, but I have not heard it contended iiere, though I suppose 
it will Ik*, that it is in the |.()\\er ma military commander there, 
or in the jiower of the I'resident of the L'nited States, as the 
Commander in Chief. der^siuK his only power in Cuba from the 
laws <jf wjir. to graut any projterty franchi«e which will outlive 
our occupation. 

The Pre^idrnt 8p«'aks for himmdf U'tter than anyone else can 

': for him. It Heil tiling' "for Con;;resH 

kVely and delii a newsitajKir interview. 

It Ills not l»een the huoit ol and while I do not chal- 

Itii-r ill •» •• -I'-htest defjree th. j ' •' ^. nator fmm < )hio 

IM>- F< . 1 do think that t this amendment 

ui...ii ll»e l'ie-id»-iit. not from 
lit from the aiii. iidment itself. 

Ti lent h.. juite careful to 1 .-r the future 

i"'" '' • ' •■ ' ' ' ' - '■'- as fraut iii~i-< .ue concerntnl. 

i ;, ill Cuba, under a law of 

■^'^ iraiichise>. The 

' . . ' ,,''ied by him. ad- 

• 1 lo tr«Deral Wade, under date oi December 12, 18UH, this 

l.i.„-...r-o: 

!t 1- n):inff<Mr that n r»nwnr whirh tint !n!n *■. Inntr nn. .in.! wl.i.-b 

I- 

fl 



K 

r. 



in- 
lit 
■ St 
'•>■ 

41, 

jkiiv 111 tbu 



In that tl. lent re ;.a that there is le;^Hla- 

tive iMjwer I. . . aat theii nnient ih.-re, which has 

the iK)wer to grant property fraiu lie further says: 

a- 
^'; ^uuiil tlio (uiurv ({uscrbuivut u( the Uiaad to obiig»tiotu 

bo in the interest of that i)eople he pnta hia foot promptlv upon 
the attempt of an alleged 1. ■ '-a to compli<ate 

the future of that island, it ,,le. and its inter- 

ests by the . 4. during our mihtarv occupation there, of 

prot>erty frai, . 

Mr. CAFFEHY. Does not that paper say that the franchises 
are to be given, or to be offered, by the representatives of the 
Sjianish (Tovernment? 

Mr. SPoONER. They claimed to do that, and the President 
stopped it. 

Mr. CAFFERY. And not by the Cuban government? 

Mr. SPOONER. Not by any Cuban government or anv other 
government. This was attempted to l>e done within two ilays of 
t' ■ 1 by Spain, and it is hardly to ]<«''8Up- 

I" ' the I'uitt'd States, caring for the in- 



15 

t«rest8 of that people in that way, protecting them, as he properly 
did, Uiraiiist the attemjit of thf Spanish representatives in a so- 
calleil f^uvemiuent. would (■oini)licate the future of the island by 
any iiuprovident Krantini; *>f franchises, or would allow the mili- 
tary connnamlfrs of the Unite<l States to do that if they had the 
power, wliich they have not. 

Mr. TELLKK. Will the Senator allow me to call his attention 
to the ord*'r issm-d by the President on the i-'d day of December 
with reference to this matter? He has it in the document from 
which he is r»>adin>i. I have no doubt. 

Mr. SPooNKK. Yes. 

Mr. TELLEU. That certainly authorizes the municiii.ilities to 
j,'rant franciiises. with tin- aiiproval of tin- conmiandinj,' uflicer in 
Culia and th'- Secretary of War. 

Mr. SP(J()NEK. Not ujitil submitted to the Secretary of War 
or submitted to the President. 

Mr. TELLER. Yes. 

Mr. SpooNER. I supi)ose my friend does not claim that the 
Pr' siilent or any military commander could grant franchises which 
wuidtl outlive our military «)Ccupatiou? 

Mr. TELLER. That is a very grave question. I think such 
franchises could outlive our military occupation. I do not think 
there is anv nuestiou about that. 

Mr. ('MrLToN. 1 wish to call the Senators attention to the 
New < )rleans case on that point. 

Mr. TELLER. In that case it was held that a military com- 
mander couhl make a franchise without limit, if I remember. 

Mr. EOKAKEU. I so un<lersian.l. 

Mr. CHIL r» >N. The decision iloes not absolutely say that. 

Mr. TELLER. It is nut an absolutely analogous ca.se to this on 
the iirincij>le laid tlown. 

Mr. FOK.VKER. No. 

Mr. CHILTi )N. In the New Orleans case a military commander 
had u'lanteil a franchise for ten years, and it was held that that 
franchise was valid on the theory that his power was not abso- 
lutely limited to the military occupation, but that he had a right 
to a reasonable e.xercise of his jtower. So it was held that that was 
a reasonable exercise of the power at that time. 

.Mr. .Sp()( )NER. That was as to a part of our own countrv 

Mr. ('HILT( )N. I understand that. 

-Mr. SPU< )NER. As to which this Government had a right to 
IfLrislate. and over which it had jurisdiction. 

Mr. t'HILTcJN. I think we can legislate in this ca.se so far as 
our military commanders are concerned. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. Presitlent. I think the statement made by 
the .Senator from Texas is correct, following the statement made 
by the .Senator from Minne.sota some days ago, that a franchise 
may be granted which extends Ijevond the military occui)ation. 
I will say to the .Senator, with all (\ue respect to his judgm 'nt as 
a lawyer, that that is the law. That is the rea.son for the offer- 
ing of this amendment. If there was no intention to extend any 
franchise beyond our military occupation, what objection caii 
there be to the amendment? 

The junior Senator from Massachusetts has stated it correctly. 
What sense is tlier*'. what common honesty is there, in our people 
occujjying the island of Culia and selling franchises, according to 
the statement made by Mr. Kennedy, the chairman of this special 
commission, to pass upon the street car and electric lights, etc.? 
3S07 



10 

If it is not the iutentiou. he cau not object: if it is the intention, 
we ont^ht to ob.iect. 

I am vt-ry nuirh pleaseil with the statement by the junior Sena- 
tor from Massachusetts that the jiassa;,'!' of this ri'solntion is n(it 
inti-ntletl to citleiul, an<l can Jiot olTeinl, tlie I^csitlent of tlie I'nitcil 
States. One of the favorite arf^iuaents of ilistin^'uishocl fjcntle- 
men on tins tioor when thev want to defeat a I'ill is to say: "If 
yiMi pass this hill. \ i»n olTeiul the President: ' antl the next Sena- 
tor who speaks will say: " If you defeat this bill, you ollend tlu 
Prt'sid.iit." 

Mr. SPi )()NKU. I have not said that. 

Mr. MASoX. I Ih?^ the S»«natr)r"8 pardon. I had not referred 
to th»* Senator from Wisconsin, except when I repliecl to his sug- 

iiw, and I say I l)elieve you will admit it to be 
the law that, followui:.; the decision in the New Orleans case re- 
ferred to by the Senator from Tex;iH u moment a;;o an<l liy the 
-. !::it>>r from MinJiesota a few days ai^o— the decision of our own 

ranted during military «x;cui«ition would 

Mr. 1 I. I am for this amendment. I had not intended to 
take a ii. . ..r. ;,..*; f '5,. i..„iy ^t tliis l;ite hour. A Sena- 

tor near ni' iiat I Would not. I will say 

to liiiii ! ' irrv at this 

hour ' ' . w I am for 

the i!)e we have no ngbt tu iratlic in the fran- 

chi.--' . V . ■ I . . 

The streets of their cities, as well as the rivers and hills of their 

' ' ' liavf* no rit^ht tOKrant franeliises 

; ii or electric, no n^lit to ;.Mant 

fr:n no r j^lit to tratlic in the futtiie of 

till).-. , ,. , ilu* 8U|Lj;;estion of the innior SiMiator 

from MiLssiichusetts. we ou^ht to oiler them a free country, in- 

. ' ' their soil, ami indn ! Miiuf; that ihn\ Almi;,'hty 

within their re:ich. a: _; franchises to use tlieir 

It to condemn, the rigiit tou.se and exercise the 

nation. 

no desire to discti«8 this amendment 
hsolutely iir rv. in order to en- 
8o very ai. ■ leave these ques- 
tli' aiijioiiitiTitc of which ilid 
ce amoiiL' t lie people. Tliere 
iitment. 
1 11 it'd his office like all n'liKst man: and 
when the clouds shall have rolled awav. it will Ije shown to the 
poi' r he ha II handed, not only in 
the War I»' , ijiit that he has never 
attempted to j^ant franchises, and he has never, in his Depart- 
ment, attempted to h--- thinfj improjjer on the people in 

Cuba. When this <1: ; i,'e!itlenian. Mr. Kennetly, states 

that fr iiited i • cars and steam-car 

lines ai. ^ he oi • i- g(xxl jud,L(ment and 

common sense, not only of the Admmistration. but of the people 
of this country. 

Mr. SEWELL. I hope we shall have an opportunity of passing 
the Amiv hill in the course of the n- ' hours. 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Theai;. it of the Senator from 

»i7 



"Mr." 


1 


1 <( 

:it 


. I h"; 


ive 


furtlK 


•r, T 




■ > 


--- 


liiih'e 


,, fh, 








tioi 










not 






I " 




was no occasion 


for I : 




General A^-er 


had t 


■IIP 



17 

Ohio [Mr. FokakeuJ is before the Senate. The question is on the 
amendment. 

Mr. MILLS. I call for the yeas and nays. 

Thf yea-s and nays wore ordered; and the Se-retary proceeded 
to call the roll. 

Mr. BACON ( when his name was called ). I am paired with the 
junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Wetmohk]. I suggest to 
tlie Senator from Ma.ssachusetts [Mr. Ludof. ]. who is paired with 
my colleague | Mr. Cl.vyJ, that we exchange our pairs, so that he 
and I may vote. 

Mr. L< )D(tE. That will be agreeable to me. 

Mr. IJACON. I vote "jrea." 

Mr. CULL( )M i when his name was called). I am paired with 
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Ghay). If he were present, I 
shouM vote " yea." 

Mr. (iEAR (when his name was called). I am paired with the 
Senator from Ni-w Jersey [Mr. Smith]. If he were present, I 
should vote " j*ea." 

Mr. BEHRV (when the name of Mr. Jones of Arkansas was 
califd ). My colleague is absent on account of illness. He is gen- 
erally paired With the .Senator from Maine (Mr. Hale]. If my 
colIeai_Mir were imsi'nt. he would vote "yea." 

Mr. KENNEY (when his name was calleil). I announce my 
pair with the junior Senator from Pennsylvania |Mr. PexroskJ. 
who is absent from the Chamber. I therefore withhold my vote. 
Were he present. I should vote " yea." 

Mr. McLAl KIN ( when his name was called). I again an- 
nounce my pair with the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
PiuTcHAithJ, 

Mr. M.\S( )N (when his name was called). Thejiair I havealready 
announced, my regular pair with the Senator from Mississippi 
[Mr. Sri, I. IV an], .still continue-, but I have a special agreement 
with liim that I may vote on this question. I will thei-efore vote. 
I vote •• yea." 

^Ir. Money (when his name was called). I am paired with 
the .senior Senator from ( )regon [ Mr. Mi Bicidk]. If he were pres- 
ent. I should vote " yea." I do not know that 1 am at liberty to 
vote in his absence. If any gentleman can tell me, one of his 
neighbors, how he would vote, I shall be glad to know. If not, I 
withhold my vote. 

The roll call was concluded. 

Mr. M()XEY. I understand that the Senator from Arkansas 
[.Mr. JoNKs] is generally paired with the Senator from Maine 
[.Mr. Hale], who votes "yea," and the Senator from Arkan.sas 
would vote "yea " if present. I transfer my pair and will vote. 
I vote "yea." I desire to state that my colleague [Mr. Sulli- 
van], who is unavoidably absent, would, if present, vote "yea." 
He releasees his pair. 

Mr. PASCO. 1 am jtaired with the Senator from Washington 
[Mr. Wilson]. I transfer my pair to the .Senator from Utah [Mr. 
Cannon], and will V(^ite. I vote "yea." 

Mr. KENNEY. I am informed that the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Penrose], if present, would vote "yea." I 
will therefore vote. I vote "yea." 

Mr. CLARK. I am infornii-d that the .Senator from Kansas 
[Mr. Harris], if present, would vote "yea." I will therefore 
vote. I vote " yea." 

3t*0T-2 



18 



Mr. BACX^N i after having voted in the affirmative). Since an- 
nouncing the transfer of niy pair, my colleagiu' has voted. There- 
fore 1 will liave to withdraw my vote, the junior Senator from 
Rhole Island not being tlnis jirotected. 

Mr. F( )HAKI:K. The St'uat.ir from California [Mr. White] is 
iinavoidalily detained from the (."hamli«"r. and I was re<|uehtod to 
announet- that if he wen- prest-nt he would voto "yeji." 

The result was announced— yeas 47, nays 11; oa follows: 

YEAH- 47 



Allen, 


Foraki-r. 


>tirtla. 


Ka 


iiato. 


UMlliuKor, 


M > .U. 


H. 


IkTry. 


Ooriunn. 


\ ' 


V 


Hutl.r. 


Hiil. 






• ■arr.rv. 


HuiiN)>r<>ii|;h. 






' 


Holtfeia. 




'i'iiumtda. 


. 


HoAr. 




Tlllniati. 


( .urk. 


Kunni'jr. 


1 


T.i. 


• Muv. 


Ltmliuiy. 


1 


T'. 


' ' ■'■ 


I>«ltf>'. 




Wan 'ii. 




MiiUorr. 




W.'UiiiKton 


i..>.. 


Mkiitlo. 


%' -It. 

NAY< n 






HaniiA. 


la 




1 ■.•*. 


HhwIojt, 


. V. 


"'■• 


Kryo, 


MorKnu. 


KcM>. 






NOT VoT'V= 'l 




Aldrtch, 


Elklnit. 


'. 


Bmltli. 


1 ' 


FniilkiKT, 


. 


' " -in. 




*»fur. 


■». 






Oniy. 




. ■ 


1 


Unrrld. 




W..tiiior«, 


( 


Jciii"'", Ark. 


! 


Whit... 


1 


Jonim, Nev. 


1 


Wilwill. 


1. 


Kyle. 




W.jl.utt, 



So the amendment prop<»fled by Mr. F'uraker wa.s agreed to. 



^^6 



ADDRESS 

of 

Hon. J. B. Foraker, 

at 

Clyde, Ohio, May ii, 1899, 

on the occa5ion of the 
funeral obsequies of 

George Burton Meek. 




GEORGE BURTON MEEK, 

of Clyde, Ohio. 

KiUed in battle on the deck of the United States Torpedo 

Boat '• Winslow," at Cardenas, Cuba, 

May n, 18^8. 



/ 



Address of — 

HON. J. B. FORAKER, 

At Clyde, Ohio, May U, 1899, 

on the occasion of the funeral 
obsequies of 

GEORGE BURTON MEEK. 



Fi;i.i,(»\\ Citi/-i:ns: — Tliis is an uiiine.NM\c nccasiiiii. We 
arc here to consign to tlieir last resting place the remains of 
C.eorge Uurton Meek, lie was one of our country's heroes: a 
hero not sini])!) because he fell in battle, but because also of the 
manly and heroic qualities he evinced throughout his life. 

His record is short, but exemplary and inspiriting. Tt reads 
as follows: 

•lie was the son oi j. V . and Hattie Meek, and was born in 
Kiley Township. Sandtisky County. Ohio. March 6. 1873. 
When he was four years old his parents moved to Townscnd 
Township. Mis mother died when he was eight years old. He 
lived in Tounsend Township until he was 18 years of age. with 
the exception of one year spent in Hardin County, Ohio. 

"At the age of 18 he went to Cleveland. Ohio, and from 
there to Erie, Pa., where he worked for the Erie Transportation 
Comj^any. until January. 1892. From Erie he went to Conneaut. 
( )hio. where he worked in the Xickel Plate Shops until April, 
when he returned to Erie, Pa., and enlisted on the U. S. S. Mich- 
igan. May 4. 1892, for a term of one year a.s a land.snian. 

'in Niarch. 1803. he was one of a party sent to assist in ar- 
ranging the Xaval Exhibit at the Columbian Exposition. While 
there he was honorably discharged. May 4. 1893. and on May 6. 



Ik went to \\(irk for the I'Jcctiic Launch and \avij;ation L\>ni 
panv. strvinj; as a i)ilot for that company until November i. the 
close of the ICxposition. 

■hriun here he went to Xew York to enUst on the U.vS S. 
New York, but faiHnj^' on account of liis wcij^ht, lie relurne I to 
Chicaj;oancl re enlisted <»n the V. S. S. Michij;an fora term of three 
vears. At the expiration of ihis time lie was again honorably 
ilischarged at Krie. I'a.. in November. iHy6. Hi then came lo 
Cl>de, Ohio, anil speul a few weeks with rela'ives and friends 

■lie then weiu to Xew York and enlistetl Decendjcr lo. 
iSt;(). on the Tnited States Monitor Puritan for a term of three 
vears. lie served on this ship imtil I )ecend)er \J. iH(>7. when In 
was transferred to the U. S. S. iManklin. He .served on this ship 
until Jannar\ 4. 1S9S. when he was again transferred to the 
rnite<l .States Torpedo Boat Winslow where he served until Miy 
I I. iSi^S. when he was killed in battle at Cardenas. Cuba " 

( )ne ot his neighbors has written of him tiiat lie was a man 

of good character, who always bore a gotxl reputation in tin 

(mnnimity where he lived." 

His commander at the battle in which he lost his lile wrote 

his bereaved father of his service and character in the navy, and of 

the ciri um>tances of his death, ilii^ touching and beautifnl 

tribute: 

■■.\av\ hepartment. I'.ureau ol ( irdiiance. 
W'ashingtou. D. C. April J. iH(/j. 
■J. V. .\1i:i;k. Ksn., \'icki:kv. ( )ni(». — Sir: 1 have the bono 
to :uk?n»\\ ledge the receipt of your letter of March 23. which is 
ni>\ r me. and which I shall endeavor to answer to the best 

>i m\ aliility. 

'■\ Our son was one of the best anrl most efficieiM ij > h <u 

•hr W inslow's crew, and had served on board that vessel from 

ii i^inning of the war. He had won the esteem of all his 

-hipmates. officers and men, for his possession of all the best at- 

ribiUes of a true seaman — energy, skill, courage :\u<\ con'^idcr- 

tion for others; was ever ready to bear his share, and more than 

lis share, of the arduous work of a cruise in war-tiiue ; and was 

listinguished for his general excellent conduct and military 

bearing. 

"^'ou^ son died at his post in baiik in the performance of his 
duty. When the forward boiler and engine of the W'inslnw had 
Ween wrecked by the shells of the enemy, I sent him and others 
if the crew stationed in that part of the vessel, on deck, as I 
deemed them safer there than below, close to the machinery. 
He with four others were standing in a group at work preparing 



/ 



a hawser for use as a line in towing^, when a shell, striking the 
fleck at a small anemic, exploded, killing them all. He died at my 
side, within half an lujur afterwards, while in the care of the sur- 
geon ; and in the boat which, at the close of the fight, had been 
sunnnoned from another vessel to remove the injured. 

■".Ml men. after a brief j^eriod of life, are sunnnoned to meet 
their Maker: and there are many ways of dying. I can not con- 
ceive of an\ more glorious death than that which has fallen to 
the lot of your son, who has been chosen by the .Mmighty to die 
fnr liis country. \'ery respectfully yours. 

■Joji.v P). P)i:RX.\non, Lieutenant V . S. Xavy. 
"Late Commanding L S Torpedo Poat Winslow " 

These testimonials show him personally worthy of the high 
honor of this occasion. Kut good as he was, brave as he was, 
gciulc and nohk' as he was. it is not Ijccause of these (pialities 
alone that the multitudes throng this place to-day I lis virtues 
were such that his memory is a i)iecious legacy to all his family 
and friends. .And tiu-y and all who mourn his loss as a personal 
bereavement are to be congratulated that they have so nuicli to 
l)e thankful for, and to incite their just pride, as they recall the 
sacrifice of his young life < )nly time and our lieaveiiK I'atlier 
can assuage their grief. It is natural, therefore, that they should 
be here. Cut then- are hundreds present to-da\' who never knjw 
this young man in Hfe : hundreds who never heard of hitn until 
he was dead. Why have they come to stand by hi^ o]>en grave 
and pnrtici])ate in these mournful obsecjuies? 

They are here because this hero was their hero. riie\ are 
here because the cause for which he fought and died was their 
cause, and the cause of our connnon countrv. Thev are here to 
lionor not only the deail. but also the cause he represented, b\" 
showing their appreciation and gratitude for the service and sac- 
rifice of tlieir representative. This is therefore an appropriate 
occasion tt) incpiire. What was that cause? Was it worthy?' and 
is it meet and fitting that we should make this demonstration "i 

W^ar is always to be deplored and always to be avoided when 
it can be avoided consistently with national honor, national dig- 
nity and national interests. iUit there come times in the life of a 
nation when a resort to arms is unavoidable. The war with Spain 



was. on our part. Mich a case. It has l)een said that it was iin- 
necessarv: that it was at least premature. It was neither. » >n 
the contrary, it was no more to be escaped than was the provi- 
dence of Ciod ; and instead of being: premature, it (»uj.;ht to have 
commenced a year before it ilid ; and. better still, twenty-five 
years before it did, when the cajitain ;ind trew of t!ic X'irtrinins 
were put to death. 

To comprehend and appreciate our action with respect \<> 
dd»a we nuist recall our jjeculiar relations to that island. It 
not only lies at oiu" door, but it is under our special protection. 

In 1823 I'resident Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine. 
The precij)itatin^ cause therefor was the Holy .Mliance fc^rmed 
for the purpose of restoring the authority n{ Spain over the South 
.\merican republics which had achieve<l their independence. 
This doctrine was rif^ht ; but whether r\^\n or not, it was accepted 
and approved by the American people, and became a firmly estab- 
lished policy of the American nation. 

It declared, among other things, that while we would not 
interfere with existing conditions, we woidd never allow the es- 
tablishment of any additional monarchial govermnents c>n the 
Western llemisphere. nor allow those already established to op- 
press any of the people over whom they ruled, nor would wi- 
allow any European monarchy to interfere or intermeddle with 
the affairs of any people on this side of the Atlantic C^cean. 

This left Cuba subject to Spain, but was notice to her that 
she should not oppressively and tyrannously govern the people 
of Cuba, and it was also notice to other European powers that, 
except Spain and ourselves, nobody else should have anything to 
do with the affairs of that island ; that no matter how bad the 
situation there might become, we would assume and discharge 
all the responsibility that could arise to any third party. I^'or 
England, or Germany, or France, or Russia to intervene to re- 
store order in that island when there might be disorder, would be 
an act of hostility toward us which we would resent. This doc- 
trine was founded on the law of self-preservation ; upon the idea 
that we had a right to prevent the establishment near us, or the 
encroachment upon us. of governments and institutions hostile 



o 



ill their nature to us. In a number of instances we have found 
it necessary to assert and enforce tbis doctrine. Nota1)ly. when 
xMaximilian undertook t(3 establish a monarchial government 
in Mexico, and quite recently against Great Britain in the con- 
trtjversv she had with respect to the territory of Venezuela. 

The result of all this was that we not <jnly had the right 
which belong? to a neighboring nation to take note of what was 
occurring in Cuba, but it was our duty, if anything occurred there 
which called for the intervention of a third power, to be that 
intervening power. For these reasons we were not indifferent, 
and had no right to i)e, to the manner in which Spain ruled that 
colony. We had no right to prescribe the ftirni or general char- 
acter of the government she might maintain there, but we had a 
right to insist that the government she provided, whatever might 
be its nature or form, should be a civilized and humane govern- 
ment ; that it should not be so tyrannous and cruel as to be un- 
bearable, and that if it should be. and insurrection and rebellion 
followed, the efforts to supj^ress that insurrection and rebellion 
should not be attended with brutal horrors that would shock all 
Christendom ; the pitiless murder of non-combatants and the 
starvation by hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women 
and children. We had a further right and duty to protect our 
own citizens and «iur own interests. Th<'«' ar.' tli.- high ptir- 
])oscs for which governments are formed. 

Such being our rights and duties, what occurred ? The story 
is long and ilark and bloody. Tt makes one of the blackest pages 
in human history. 1 shall not stop to specify. It is sufiFicient to 
sav the people of that island were denied all voice in their gov- 
ernment. They were excessively taxed; they were denied the 
most common privileges; they were ruled with the harshness 
of medieval tyranny. For generations they were required to 
make bricks without straw. They submitted as long as they 
could. When they could endure no longer, they rebelled. Their 
cause was just ; a hundred times more so than the cause of our 
own father*^ of the American Revolution. They sought only to 
govern themselves. Their cause was the cause of liberty, of 
f: eedom, of independence. . . . i 



The conflict soun disclosed that they were ovcrniatcheil. hiU 
uncoiu|uerable. From the he^iniiiiifj^ Spain thsrejj^arded the hiw 
of civihzed warfare. All captives, as a rule, were brutallN hutch- 
ered ; non-combatants were alst) put tn the >word ; she wmuj^hl 
devastation and ruin on every hand. 

h^inally she put the whole civilized world to shame by delib- 
erately undertaking to starve and thus exterminate the entire 
Cuban j)opulation. ( )ld men, women and children who had com- 
mitted nti «)ffense against anybody were forcibly gathered 1»\ 
thousanils fiom their homes into reconcentration camps, as they 
were called, and there kei)t imtil. according to conservative esti- 
mates, more than 400,(XX) perished from himger and want. In 
all the history of the world no such startling, shocking, brutal, 
heartless, wholesale wickedness was ever known. .\lva in tlu- 
N'etherlands was surpassed by W'eyler in Cuba. 

Knowing the justness of their cause, the sympathies of the 
.\merican people went out to the struggling Cubans from tlu 
beginning of their contest. Init when these unspeakable horr(jrs 
were enacted, the whole nation perceived that the solemn duty 
was upon us to put a stop to such cruelties and barbarities. Ac- 
cordingly, the President remonstrated and protested and de- 
manded, but althcjugh some promises were secured, no material 
reform was instituted. The .savage war went on with all its sav- 
age ferocity. 'I he whole world stood aghast. War was so unde- 
sirable to the American people, given up as they were to the 
jnirsuits of peace, that the nation hesitated to take positive action, 
until finally the destruction of the Maine precipitated a contlut 
that was inevitable. In no spirit, however, of anger or revenge; 
in no spirit of conquest ; not for territorial acquisitions ; not for 
martial honor or glory, but solely for humanity's sake this great 
people, with singular unanimity, then declared that Spain had 
forfeited her right of sovereignty over that people and must with- 
draw her army and navy from Cuba and Cuban waters and allow 
her suffering subjects to go free. Had she complied with that 
demand, that would have been the end of the trouble, for our 
purpose went no further. Plad she contented herself with simply 
resisting, our operations would have been confined to that one 



island. Imt the God of Battles decreed otherwise. The Great 
Ruler of men and nations had wider and nobler duties tor us 
than any of which we had dreamed. Not only in Cuba, but in 
I'orto Rico and the Philippines also there were shackles to break. 
Spain refused to abandon Cuba, and answered our demand with 
a declaration of war. We could not escape the issue so tendered, 
and thus became involved not only Cuba, but all the Spanish 
possessions. 

All thinking men must iiavc known from the beginning what 
the ultimate general result would be. With such a cause, thi.'; 
country, w ith its boundless resources of wealth and patriotic and 
heroic sons, was the inevitable victor ; but the most sanguine 
could not have foreseen the brilliant chapter of events that fol- 
lowed. We had been so long at peace that many feared our 
army and navy had forgotten the art of war, and that we might 
have no conmianders equal to the emergency, but all these mis- 
givings were speedily dispelled. < )n land and on sea our arms 
won imperishable renown. The 'men behind the guns," and 
the "men who followed the flag." ([uickly demonstrated that they 
were heroes worthy of the best days of the Republic, and to the 
long list of commanders were added the names of the incom- 
I)aral)le Dewey and a score of others scarce less dear to the 
American heart. Manila and Santiago are names that will for- 
ever stir the American blood. l*rom the opening gun down to 
the last shot that has been fired in the Philippines, we have met 
with uninterrupted success. 

Cuba is free, and in the near future her people will govern 
themselves. 

Porto Rico has passed from the yoke of bondage to the 
blessings of free and enlightened government. 

In the Philippines we have had unexpected and deplorable 
experiences, the cause for which this is not the time nor the place 
to discuss, but in the end, not far distant I trust, that people will 
know that a great work has been wrought for them, and that 
this nation is there not to oppress, but to uplift them, and to sus- 
tain them in their efforts and aspirations for liberty, independence 
and self-government. 



8 

I speak with this detail of the origin, character and results 
of the war, not only to justify our action, but also that it may be 
made plain that he whom we honor to-day not only died fightinp; 
for his country, but fighting for humanity, truth, justice, liberty — 
for all that could ennoble death. His life was short, but it was 
not lived in vain. It is a part of one of the most brilliant chap- 
ters of this country's history. His death was indeed sad, but it 
was sanctified and made glorious by the cause in which he fell, 
and the triumphant victories with which it is inseparablv con- 
nected. 

We give him to-day his place in this cemetery near by the 
gallant soldier who fell at the head of his army in the shock of 
battle before Atlanta. If the great McPherson could speak, he 
would tell us there should be no distinctions of rank in the claims 
of those who die for the flag, upon the country's gratitude. All 
any one can do is his duty. He who does that gives all any one 
can give — and whether he be the titled commander or the humble 
follower, his service is complete and his honor is full. Side b)- 
side, then, let these heroes sleep in this henceforth doubly hon- 
ored spot. In life they represented the rank and the file, the 
army and the navy, the land and the sea. In death they proclaim 
a heroism and valor, suffering and sacrifice, liberty and indepen- 
dence, that have wrought a national life fraught with unspeak- 
able blessings for us and all the millions beyond the seas upon 
whom our influences are to fall. The one represents a union 
preserved, a constitution perfected, a race emancipated and en- 
franchised ; the other typifies a reunion of sections, an expansion 
of power and spheres of influence, a plane of action as high and 
broad as humanity itself, and a future for the .Vmerican people 
greater and grander in honor and good works than any language 
can describe. The work of the one prepared the way for the 
work of the other, and the deeds of the last are the fitting supple- 
ment to the deeds of the first. We may with propriety apply 
to them the beautiful words of the poet, who, singing of other 
heroes, said: 



9 

" Ye whom these words can not reach with their transient breath, 

Deaf ears that are stopped with the brown dust of death, 

Blind eyes that are dark to your own deathless glory, 

Silenced hearts that are heedless to the praise murmured o'er ye, 

Sleep deep, sleep in peace, sleep in memory ever ; 

Wrapped each soul in the deeds of its own deathless endeavor. 

Till that great, final peace sh-ll he struck through the world, 

Tdl the stars be recalled and the firmament furled." 

So mtich for the dead. Let me now speak of the hving. 
We have new questions to meet, new responsibilities to bear, 
and new duties to discharge. Since the organization of our gov- 
ernment until now, more than a century, we have been steadily 
multiplying otir wealth and population. During this period we 
have extended our territory until the thirteen original States, 
with an area of something like 800,000 square miles, have grown 
to forty-five States, with an area, including our territories, of 
more than three and a half milhons of square miles. We have 
70,000,000 of people, and more than $70,000,000,000 of property. 
This growth has been so wonderful, and has so absorbed atten- 
tion, that the fact has been lost sight of by most people that dur- 
ing this same period we have had a corresponding growth in the 
development of our institutions and the establishment of the 
constitutional powers of our government. Of course, except 
only as it has been amended, our constitution is the same to-day 
that it was on the day of its adoption, and the powers conferred 
1)v it on the day of its adoption were as great as those same pow- 
ers are to-day ; but at the beginning all questions that arose were 
open to discussion, and scarcely any important power of the 
government was conceded. The power to make internal im- 
provements, to levy taxes, to lay imposts, to protect our industries 
and labor, to acquire territory, to govern it, to create and admit 
new States, to abolish slavery, to protect our own citizens ; yea, 
even the powder to preserve our own constitution and maintain 
our existence and national Hfe — all these powers, and many oth- 
ers, essential to complete sovereignty, have been at one time 
and another denied, assailed and made the subject of bitter con- 
troversy ; but finally, in the onward sweep of time and events, it 
has been irrevocably settled that our government possesses and 
can exercise all of them as occasion may require. The century 



10 

that ha.s just passed has been replete, therefore, nui only witli 
material development and moral and intellectual ujiliftinj^. I)ut 
also with the devclopmeiu ;nul stren^theninpj >ii our national 
unity and power. In consequence, we stand in-da\ "liki' a 
strong man rejoicinj^ to run a race." lIeret«jfore it has been our 
j.;reat first purpose to develop our own resources, midliply «)iu" 
industries, employ our labor and supply (jur own wants, to the 
end that we might become independent s«j far as possible in a 
conunercial as well as political sense. The pre-eminent success 
of this policy is demonstrated l)y the fact that to-day we not nnl\ 
thoroughly supply our own markets, practically barring out 
e\erybody else, as to all those connnodities which we can an<l 
should produce, but we are. in addition manufacturing a large 
surplus for which we must find markets abroad. 

When the h'ifty-fifth Congress inidertook to frame the Ding 
!ey tariff law, it was with great difficulty that enough importa- 
tions could be found to yield, with reasonable rates, an ade(|uale 
revenue for the support of the government in time of i)eace. 
The trouble was not that our petjple ijid n(Jt re(|uire and use com- 
modities as formerly, but our own home develoi)ment was such 
that we ourselves were supplying them. an<l there was no Icjnger 
need to buy from abroad. In other words, we have reached the 
|)oint where we are entirely, or at least practically so, supplying 
our home market, and are manufacturing largely in excess of 
our own demands. The table (»f imports and exports for the last 
fiscal year shows that we sold to other countries twice as much 
as we bought from them. The aggregate of our exportations 
and sales amounted to $1,210,291 .^i^V ^vhile the total bought and 
im|)orted was about $616,049,654. \o nation since the begin- 
ning of time has ever enjoyed so stu|K*ndous a prosperity as these 
figures indicate, and no nation was ever blessed with such human 
activity as is now found in all departments of .\merican industry. 
Xew mines, and mills, and factories are multijjlying on every 
hand. The demand for labor, and especially skilled labor, is tht 
greatest that has ever been known. In consequence wages are 
a<lvancing and employment is within the reach of all who are 
willing tr. unrk Tf w« vv..ulf] have this happy condition con- 



n 

tinue. we must recognize the radical world changes that havc 
been occurring, and meet their requirements. The time was 
when we looked only to the East, across the Atlantic, to Europe, 
for all great influences affecting our material prosperity. We 
must now look also in the opposite direction. We can sell, and 
will largely, of our surplus products to European countries, but 
in doing so we nnist meet the fiercest competition it is possible 
to encounter, and be sul)ject to many disadvantages. Those 
c<»untries are hives of industry. Their aim is. and ever will l)e. 
to supplv themselves, and in a large measure they will always 
acct)mplish that pur])o>r. Tlu-y will not buy from us oxccpl nnl 
to meet their deficiencies, which will always be as small as they 
can make them, and nuich too small to absorb our surplus. Our 
interests compel us. therefore, to look in another direction, and 
as it is with us, so too is it with tlu-m. The fact that we suppl 
our own wants ><> fullv has compelled them to look beyond us 
for their markets (.f the future. a> we are looking beyond them. 
.\nd so it is tliat we are all l«»oking in the same direction — to the 
far h'ast. .Ml recognize that on the Pacific and in the ( )riental 
seas will be found for the next generation a steady and rapidl\ 
augmenting connnerce of the world. China is just now the cen- 
ter of most interest. With her jjopulation of four lum<lred mil- 
lions she offers a market that is coveted by all the nations, an»l 
most of them are striving to secure it. France. Germany and 
Russia are foremost in pressing for advantage. It would be an 
injustice, little short of criminal, to the farmers and laborers of 
.\merica for this government t(i neglect to secure our fair shar 
of this coming trade. It is not. therefore, a vanity, to be dis- 
missed with the "cry of imperialism or militarism, but a duty, for 
us in everv legitimate and consistent wav <^'^ .-xtend our influence 
and ])ower in that (juarter of the globe. 

It is with an eye single to this great, patriotic, .\merican 
purpose that President McKinley is seeking to uphold the 
advantages that the war brought us in this regard. There are 
differences of opinion as to what should be done in this behnl 
but I believe the best judgment of the best men of this nation 
without regard to party affiliations or political differences will 



12 

U()lu)kl a policy that involvt-s so viiall\ the welfare of the Amer- 
ican people. In the presence of this ^reat i|iiesti<>n past jxilitical 
differences will he larg^ely disregarded, and the men <if the Smuli 
and the men of the North will stand shoulder to shoulder for our 
citmmon cause, as Ensign Uagley. of Xorth Carolina, and Heorge 
llurton Meek, of Ohio, stood shoulder to shoulder on the deck 
of the W'inslow. and as the men from all the States, without re 
i^aul to bcctions. stood shoulder to shoulder at Santiag«) and 
Manila, in Cuba, and in the Philippines. It is no time now to 
nupiire whether all was done that could have been, or shoidd 
have been done to avoid the unhappy war in which we have been 
engaged with the insurgent Filipinos. It is enough to know that 
rlic fortunes of war took us to those islands, and that when peace 

..: .- AC could not in justice or honor return them to Spain, or 
leave them to be parceled out by land-grabbing powers, or. worse 

till, leave them in a state of anarchy. Our presence there was 
lawful, and our purposes were of most exalted character. Wheth 
I r the difHculties we are having could have been avoided, matters 
not now : while our flag and our soldiers are under fire they nmst 
'-' ■ 'Ur unqualified and unbounded support. When peace 
- ..V .. as it doubtless soon will. then, in a spirit of justice to all 
interests involved, the American people, through their President 
and representatives in Congress, will determine what shall be our 
relations to those peoples and those islands. It is my hope and 
dream that the bitterness engendered by this strife may pass 
away, and that this c«)untry may become and remain the protect- 
ing power and dominating influence, applying and extending the 
blessings of good government until the inhabitants of those isl- 
ands may be capable of governing themselves. an<l enter into the 
enjoyment of that independence for which they have so bravely 
striven. 

The .success of such a {Kjlicy means not only the highest good 

to the people of those islands, but also the highest good to our 

own people. We shall be thus given a base of operations and a 

place among other nations that will enable us to cotumand ecpial 

'pportunity to share in the trade and commerce so essential t<j 

le continued growth and prosperity of our countrv. While. 



10 
O 

tlierefore. we would never have gone there with the sword for 
such a purpose, yet, being there, it is our lawful right and moral 
duty to stay, both for the good we ^hall do to others and the 
good we shall do to ourselves. 

The hand of God is plainly in it all. Under His guidance 
and protection we have grown strong by the multiplication of 
our people and wealth, and strong also by the development of our 
governmental powers. We are now singularly well equipped for 
the highest duties of national life. Think you these rich bless- 
ings have been given us only for luxurious enjoyment? \ot so! 
They come charged with obligations. We are not free to hide 
our talent in a napkin, but rather let us, with that dignified self- 
reliance that becomes a country conscious of its power and duty, 
proclaim, by our action, that, "with malice toward none, with 
charity for all." we intend to go unfalteringly forward to the ful- 
rillment of our manifest destinv. 



I 
1 



ADDRESS 

of 

Hon. J. B. FORAKER 

at 

Fort Thomas, Kentucky, 

JULY I, 1899, 
on the occasion of the unveiling of 

THE MEMORIAL TABLETS 

erected in honor of the officers 
and men of 

The Sixth Re.i>:iment of U. S. Intantry 

who fell at San Juan, Cuba, 
July I, 1898, and 

Brigadier=Qeneral Harry C. Egbert 

killed in battle near A\anila, Philippine 
islands. 



Fklluw CiTizK.Ns: The Sixili Rcf^iment of United States 
Infantry was organized in 1808. It had been continuously in the 
service a period of ninety years when the Spanish- American War 
commenced. It already had a long, eventful and brilliant history. 
It had served in the War of 1812 with Great Britain, in the Flor- 
ida Wars, in the war with Mexico, and throughout the Civil War 
of 1861-65, and had seen all kinds of service on the frontiers, 
fighting Indians, marching, scouting and doing garrison duty. 

Its service in Mexico was especially distinguished. It par- 
ticipated in all of the important battles leading up to the capture 
of the City of Mexico. Cerro Gordo, Contreras, Churubusco, 
Chapultepec and Molino del Rey are all inscribed on its banner. 
Some idea of the severity of the engagements through which it 



passed is j^ivcn hy tht- fact that in llu-sc hattUs it> llajjf was pierced 
l»v Mexican l>ullets forty-five times. 

In the Civil War it was e(|ually cHstin^uishid. Ciaines Mill. 
Malvern Hill, second I'nll Knn, Krederickshnr^. Antietani. Chan- 
cellorsville and (K'ttysburpf were anionj; the hloodiest and most 
important conflicts of that j^reat strnj4;j;le, and the Sixth was en 
{.jajjeil in all of them. 

< Ml its roster are borne man\ names of officers who arc illn> 
trions in onr country's history. Zachary Taylor was at one tinu 
its Colonel: Winliehl Scott Hancock served with it in Mexicn 
as a Second Lieutenant and .\djutant ; Major (ieneral .Mexaiuler 
McDowell McCook was at one time proud to be its connnander. 
as was also Major (ieneral William 15. Ha/.en, the hero of I'ort 
Mc.Mlister. and one of the most trusted officers of Sherman's 
army. .Xmonj; the names of its Lieutenant Colonels are foun«l 
those of (ieneral John K. Wool and our own beloved and 
lamented Harry C. Kgbert. whose j^entle memory lingers with 
ns all like a sweet perfume. 

Some of the most honored names identified with the Con- 
federate Army are found in its list of officers. Albert Sidney 
Johnston, Simon Holivar Uuckner, Lewis A. Armistead. Richar<l 
15. Garnett and Henry Heth are names dear to every lover of the 
"Lost Cause," because of their faithful, valorous and brilliant 
services in its belialf. When, therefore, the recent war c(jm- 
nenced this regiment had a place and a record in the annals of 
our country already bright with men an<l deeds; it had brilliant 
and distinguished names on its roster, and the luster and renown 
of many heroic battles to give it pride and inspiration ; it had a 
glorious past to protect and emulate. In these respects it had 
all the highest incentives of duty, but those who knew it best 
had yet other assurances. It had been for a long time quartered 
at this Post ; it had been largely recruited from this vicinity ; its 
men were our sons; \\c knew their antecedents, their good char- 
ter, their splendid physical condition and their well nigh perfect 
discipline. Their camp had been a model ; their drill had been 



constant, carrfiil :\ni\ thorough. It is onoup:h to say they were 
jjrcparccl fc»r the work that was before them. 

\'ot least among the compensations of that war was the 
knowledge it brought home to the American people of the true 
character of the American army and the American navy. 

We had been so long at peace that we had almost forgotten 
that we had either ; but while we had been absorbed with the 
pursuits of commerce and trade, those to whom this duty had 
fallen had been inlelligently laboring with the utmost zeal and 
tidelity. and. as the result showed when their work was \nn to 
the test, with the highest possible success. 

The regular army of the I'nited States in .\pril, uSy.'S, was 
small in luunbers, but it was the equal in every essential qualit) 
<jf any army of like size that was ever marshaled by this or any 
other country. For more than a decade the standard of admis- 
sion to enlistment IkkI been so high that no man could be 
accepted, even as a private soldier, whu was not of good moral 
character, of approved intelligence, nnd of perfectly sound 
physical con<lition. Of the officeis it is enough to say that they 
were selected from the old Union army for special funess and 
worth, or were graduates of the military academy at West I'oiiU. 
a school witiiout a sujK-rior among its kind in all the W(jrld. 
When they were mobilized for Cuba they were, from General 
Miles, their gallant and veteran connnander, who had brought 
ihem U) their high state of efficiency, down to the humblest pri- 
vate soldier, an army of athletes, inspired, like the Crusaders 
of old, with a zeal for their cause which nothing less noble than 
intelligent love of liberty and human kind could impart. 

The Sixth came up to all the requirements of this incom- 
parable force. 

To Colonel Cochran, who was unable to go to the 
held, too much credit can not be given for his tireless work 
in making the regiiuent what it was. Its work at the front is 
a splendid testimonial to the worth of his services as its com- 
mander. We knew and appreciated all this. and. therefore, when 



his nun nuirclu-'l away, our hearts naturally went with thcni. 
to he j^rifVfil hy tlu'ir losses, but confidently expecting to he 
filled with jjride and admiration hy the heroism and valor they 
would display. We were not disappi tinted ; our expectations were 
more than realized. Where all did .so nohly it would he invidious 
to particularize, hut it is only repeatinj.^ history to say that greater 
tjallantry, more distinjjuished hravery or more heroic fidelity 
to duty was never evinced on field t>f hattle than was shown hy 
this rei^inu-nt at San Juan and Santiaijo, Without y:oin^^ into 
details, it is sufficient to say it was at the very forefront of the 
fif^ht. and that its percentage of casualties was the greatest sus- 
tained hy any rejjiment en^aj^ed in the hattle. Colonel F.j^hert. 
who conunanded it until severely wounded, himself a soldier of 
the Civil War an<l a hero of many of its {greatest hattles. says 
in his (»fficial report: "They" (the nun of the Sixth) "acted from 
the first to the last of this trying; day like veterans of many hattles. 
( >fficers and men fouj.jht with a steady and determined 
valor worthy of their couiUry and race. Tiie re<;iment took into 
action four hundred and sixty-three officers and nun. aiul its 
loss was eleven officers and (jne hundred and fourteen men." lie 
then adds: ".\g:ain referring to the t)fficers of this rej^nmeiit who 
fell in this action— Captain Alexander M. Wetherell, Fir.st Lieu- 
tenant Jules C,. ( )rd. Second Lieutenant Reuben S. Turman and 
Second Lieutenant Kdnumd M. lienchley — it would seem to mc 
a benefit to the country if a fitting monument could be erected 
in memory of their valor aiul that of the officers and men (jf 
other organizations." 

GovernnuMit may never act upon this recommendation. 
In .>ueli matters it seldom does what it should; but already on 
this, the first anniversary of their sacrifice, loving friends and 
patriotic citizens who appreciate their services and cherish their 
menutry. have assembled here at the most fitting place in all the 
country, at their last soldier home, to formally present and dedi- 
cate yonder beautiful tablet to the high purpose of commem- 
orating not only their names and deeds, but those also of all their 
comrades who fell and sleep with them. 



f> 



I'.ut. alas ! already in the list of our heroes dead is written also 
Ihc name of their gallant commander, who. little foreseeing what 
was so soon to occur to him, bespoke for them this evidence of 
the country's gratitude, and most fittingly he, too. is this day re- 
membered'with a tablet of his own. Even before his wound was 
healed Colonel Egbert, although deservedly promoted to be a 
P,rigadicr General of United States \'olunteers. was ordered to 
report for duty in the far-away Thilippines as Colonel and com- 
mander of the' Twenty-second United States Infantry. He was 
n.jt in proper physical condition to go. but his unconquerable 
spirit and soldierly pride were stronger than his sense of duty to 
himself, and without hesitation he started for that new f^eld. where, 
almost as soon as he arrived, he fell in battle at the head of his 

conmiand. 

There is something miserably incongruous in the fact that 
he should have survived his wound from the Spaniards at San- 
tiago, received while fighting for llu- liberty and in<lei)endencc 
of the Cubans, only to be hurrie<l annind llu' globe, there to 
receive a mortal stroke from the poor Filipinos, who at least 
imagine that they are fighting for their liberty and independence. 
lUit in it all he ha<l no choice. It was with him as with tlio 

Light Brigade: 

"Theirs not to make reply ; 
Theirs not to reason why j 
Theirs but to do and die." 

lie obeyed and fell; and as it was with him, so is it with all 
these dead. They lived an-l died true soldiers, and we honor 
ourselves in honoring them. 

We are here, however, to honor them, not alone for their 
physical courage. That quality is not exceptional; it has been 
common to all nations, in all ages. The Greeks, the Romans 
and the savage hordes of barbarians they conquered, were equally 
brave, so far as disregard of personal safety was concerned ; and 
as it was in ancient times, so it is in these modern days. Even 
the Filipinos seem not afraid to go to battle and death, though 
all the odds are against them. What more pathetic, and at tlie 



saiiu- tinu' nu>rc niaj^iiihciiit. than tlu- sijjht rcci-mly witmssid 
at Manila, wlun tlu- half-civilized and more than half-naked 
insnrjj^ents <»f Agninaldo, armed with only bows and arr»)ws and 
liin^' spears, undertook to stand hefoi Krag-Jory^ensen rifles 

an<I the thirteen-inch j^uns of civilization and "benevolent assimi- 
lation" ! 

{•ut of no people is heroism a more common attribute than 
»»f the American. I'"r»)m Hunker Hill tt> the jun^des of the 
( »rii 111. whenever or wherever the llajj has been unfurled, on 
land or on sea, there have been foll(»wers ready to dt) and die 
for its honor and supremacy. Our history is an uniiUerrupted 
story «»f bravery, gallantry and ever-increasing glory. Mere 
bravery, therefore, does not excite exceptional honor. 

This extraor<linary occasion has a wider significanci li 
look- 'd feats <»f daring and comprehends the cause with 

whicl vere identified, and measures the results of the blot)d 

that has been she<l. it raises the intpiiry, l)i<l these men tight and 
fall in a just or unjust cause? 

Speaking on :his point. I recently had occasion to say that, 
"To comprehend and appreciate our action with respect to Cuba, 
we must recall our peculiar relation to that island. It not only 
lies at our <loor. but it is under our special protection. 

In 1S23 rresitlenl Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine. 
The precipitating cause therefor was the Holy Alliance forme<l 
for the purjxise of restoring the authority of Spain over the 
South .\nierican republics, which had achieved their independ- 
eii his doctrine was right; but whether right or not, it was 

accepted and approved by the .\merican people, and became a 
firml\ established pcjlicy of the American nation. 

It declared, among other things, that, while we would not 
interfere with existing conditions, we wouUl never allow the 
establishment of any additional monarchial governments on 
the Western hemisphere, nor allow those already established 
to oppress any of the people over which they ruled, nor would 
we allow any European monarchy to interfere or intermeddle 
with the affairs of any people on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. 



This left Cuba subject to Spain, but was notice to her that 
she shouhi not oppressively and tyrannously govern the people 
of Cuba, and it was also notice to other European powers that. 
excei)i Spain and ourselves, nobody else should have anything 
I.. d(. with the afTairs of that island; that no matter how bad the 
situation there might become, we would assume and discharge 
all the responsibility that could arise to any third party; for 
l-.ngland. or (k-rmany. or France. ..r Russia to intervene to 
restore order in that island when there might be disorder would 
\n- an act of hostility toward us which we would resent. 

This doctrine was founded on the law of self-preservation, 
up. .11 the idea that we had a right to prevent the establishment 
near us, or the encroachment upon us. of governments and insti- 
tutions hostile in their nature to us. Tti a number of instances we 
have found it necessary to assert and enforce this doctrine, notably 
when Maximilian un<lertook 'ablish a monarchial govern- 

ment in Mexico, and {piitc recently against C.reat P.ritain in the 
controversy she had with respect to the territory of X'enezuela. 
The result of all this was that we not only had the right whicli 
belongs to a neighboring nation to take note of what was occur- 
ring^ in Cuba, but it was ..ur duty, if anything occurred there 
which called for the intervention of a third power, to be that 
intervening p<jwer. h'or these reasons we were not indiflferent, 
and had no right to be, to the manner in which Spain ruled that 

colony. 

We had no right to prescribe the form or general character 
of the government .she might maintain there, but we had a right 
to insist that the government she provided, whatever might be 
its nature or form, should be a civilized and humane govern- 
ment ; that it should not be so tyrannous and cruel as to be 
unbeaiable, and that if it should be, and insurrection and rebellion 
followed, the efTorts to suppress that insurrection and rebellion 
should not be attended with brutal horrors that would shock all 
Christendom ; the pitiless murder of non-combatants and the 
starvation by hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women 
and children. We had a further right and duty to protect our 



^ ^ V 



8 

(tun citizens and our own interests. These are the high purposes 
for which governments are formed. 

Such being- our rights and duties, what occurred ? The story 
is long, and dark, and bloody. It makes one of the blackest 
pages in human history. T shall not stop to specify. It is suffi- 
cient to say the people of that island were denied all voice in 
their government. They were excessively taxed ; they were 
denied the most common privileges; they were ruled with the 
harshness of medieval tyranny. For generations they were 
required to make bricks without straw. They submitted as long 
as they could. When they could endure no longer they rebelled. 
Their cause was just, a hundred times more so than the cause 
of our own fathers of the American Revolution. They sought 
only to govern themselves. Their cause was the cause of liberty, 
of freedom, of independence. 

The conflict soon disclosed thai the}' were overmatched. 
i)ut unconquerable. From the beginning Spain disregarded the 
law of civilized warfare. All captives, as a rule, were brutally 
butchered ; non-combatants were also put to the sword ; she 
wrought devastation and ruin on every hand. 

Finally she put the whole civilized world to shame by delilj- 
erately undertaking to starve, and thus exterminate, the entire 
Cuban population. Old men, women and children, who had 
conmiitted no ofifense against anybody, were forcibly gathered 
by thousands from their homes into reconcentration camps, as 
they were called, and there kept until, according to conservative 
estimates, more than four hundred thousand perished from 
hunger and want. In all the history of the world no such start- 
ling, shocking, brutal, heartless, wholesale wickedness was ever 
know^n. 

Knowing the justness of their cause, the sympathies of the 
x\merican people went out to the struggling Cubans from the 
beginning of their contest ; but when these unspeakable horrors 
were enacted, the whole nation perceived that the solemn duty 
was upon us to put a stop to such cruelties and barbarities. 
Accordingly, the President remonstrated and protested and 



9 

demanded, but, althoii.s^h some promises were secured, no material 
reform was instituted. The savage war went on with all its savage 
ferocity. The wliole world stood aghast. War was so unde- 
sirable to the American people, given up. as they were, to the 
pursuits of peace, that the nation hesitated to take positive action, 
until finallv the destruction of the Maine precipitated a conflict 
that was inevitable. Tn no spirit, however, of anger or revenge, 
in no spirit of conquest, not for territorial acquisitions, not for 
martial honor or glor>', but solely for humanity's sake, this great 
people, with singular unanimity, then declared that Spain had 
forfeited her right of sovereignty over that people, and must with- 
draw her army and navy from Cuba and Cuban waters and allow 
her suffering subjects to go free. Had she complied with that 
demand, that would have been tlie end of the trouble, for our 
purpose went no further. Had she contented herself with simply 
resisting, our operations would have been confined to that one 
island; but the God of battles decreed otherwise. 

The Great Ruler of men and nations had wider and nobler 
duties for ns than any of which we had dreamed. Not only in 
Cuba, but in Porto Rico and the Philippines also, there were 
shackles to break. Spain refused to abandon Cuba, and answered 
our demand with a declaration of war. We could not escape 
the issue so tendered, and thus became involved not only Cuba, 
but all the Spanish possessions." 

Not onlv did we thus become involved in war for the sake 
of humanitv. Imt in advance we solemnly disclaimed "any dis- 
position or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or 
control over said island, except for the pacification thereof," and 
asserted our determination "when that is accomplished to leave 
the government and control of the island to its people." 

Our action could not have been either more grave or more 
unselfish. It involved the expulsion from this hemisphere of 
the Spaniard who discovered it. It meant the recognition and 
establishment of a new people, with our guarantee of the right 
and ultimate enjoyment of free self-government. It involved 
the risk of complications with other European powers, all of 



10 

which, except onl\ iMi^'lainl. regarded mir stc|) with imiiiiMidli- 
ncss. \o one could f(jrclc'll the measure of the (htlieuhies we 
would encounter or the hurdens we would have to bear ; and yet. 
when the die was finally cast, wc tUiI not hesitate either to go 
f«)rward or to debar ourselves in advance from .ill atlvantagi- 
that might arise from the results of the struggle. 

We must go back three hundred years in the world s hKst«)ry 
tM rind anything like a parallel case. 

When <Jueen Kli/abeth responded to the appeals oi the 

ailed Netherlands she refused the sovereignty they tendered. 
.11 ' ting their wrongs ami grievances, the deprivation of their 

hlKiiu> and the cruellies and persecutions to which they had 
ted. made |)roclamation to all Kurope that she 
iiiunucU to aid them, concluding with this declaration: "We 
mean n«Jt hereby to make particular profit to ourself and our 
people, only ilesiring to obtain, by (lod's favor, for the Countries 
a del; c of them fn>m war by the Spaniards and foreigners, 

with a le.siiiution of their ajjcient liberties and government." 

This intervention was, like ours in Cuba, induced b\ cruehu > 
ai ;tions of almost indescribable character. It was i»\ 

the Augiu-Saxon again.Nt the Spaniard, who appears as merciless 
in the per.son of Wcyler as he was in the perstju of Alva. I-'U 

imuercial reasons it was delayed by Elizabeth long after all 

Ijigland felt it U) be her duty to interpose, just as, for similar 

itions, our action with respect to Cuba was postpone<l. 

liui Imally there came, in the assassination of William of Orange, 

^reat. precipitating cause, by which all (piibbling and halting 

>wcpt aside, and the nation spoke out for liberty and 

humanity with a voice that even a Queen on her throne could 

not disregard; just as in our case the destruction of the Maine 

stirred our junplc to their depths, and raised a storm of indignant 

itiment that no Administration could withstand. 

The Queen stopped measuring the injury to trade, the cost 

of armies, the superior strength and wealth of Spain, then the 

greatest, richest and most powerful nation of Europe, and thought 

only of duty and its faithful discharge, no matter what its cost 



11 

nii^lit r.c. just as wc stopped such heartless ami pusillanimous 
calculations and thought only of duty when our ship and sailors 
were tTcacherously sent to the bottom of the sea. 

Spain was driven out of the Low- Countries, not in o\w hun- 
dred davs, as she was driven from Cuba, but only after years 
.,f striiKRle and -scores of fierce battles, in which the best blood 
nf England was she<l ; but notwithstanding all this trial and sac- 
rifice, far beyond what was foreseen, the pledge of England was 
so re'ligiouslv kept that when the end came, no one ha<l other 
thought than for the independence of the Dutch Republic, and 
its firm establishment and full recognition. 

In like manner our pledge must be kept by the prompt estai>- 
lishment and prompt recognition of an independent government 
for the Republic of Cuba, after which, and not before, we can. 
uith hi.nor, consider the question of annexation. \Mun this is 
done the work in which these men fell will have been finished, 
and iluy wdl be idcntifie«l with one of the brightest an.l uk.si 
important chajners in the world's history. 

For while the war was short, yet it was long enougli i.. mak. 
a great deal of history. It changed the luap of the world, h 
pu*! the once proud and powerful Spanish nalit.n out of the clas> 
of world powers and raised the American nation to that rank. 
It won for us the respect and admiration of all mankind. 
Henceforth, wherever our Hag floats, it will be hailed, not onlv 
as the symbol of liberty anrl independence, but also of humanity 

and power. 

It brought England and the United States into the closes: 
friendship and thus prepared these two nations to stand together, 
as thev nuist. in that great rivalry between Slav and Saxon thai 
is to determine in the near future the supremacy of trade and 
commerce in the Orient. 

Ii helped us at home as well as abroad. The South feels 
at home again in the Union; she again feels that our country is 
iier country, our flag her flag, our history her history, our glory 
her glory, and our destiny her destiny. It was worth all the wa: 
cost to see South Carolina and Massachusetts, Virginia and Ohio. 



12 

Lee and Grant, Wheeler and Shafter. I'nion and Confederate, 
marchings and figliting side by side for the Stars and Stripes. 
To-day we have no sections — no North, no South, no East, no 
West — only one grand America for all Americans. 

All honor to those who wrought these great achievements 
and evtrla>ting iiomage to the brave men who died ior them. 
Mas 'heir memory be forever cherished by a grateful people. 

It is in this spirit, and to commemorate these i)riceless results, 
that the patriotic citizens of these cities have erected these tablets, 
and it is to these high purposes that we here and now dedi- 
cate them. They can do but little for the dead, but for genera- 
ii"ii> to come they will speak words of inspiration to the living. 
All who will study the messages they bear will learn not only 
how lieroism and valor are appreciated, but also how this nation, 
in the name of justice and humanity, exalted itself and at the 
same time set the world an example that will make all mankind 
better. 



/ ^ 



3fn iHrmoriam 



MvQ. i^argarct 3^rrcc dForakr 



ISIO ^ ^ 1800 



' / 




V 



"3 



MRS. MARGARET REECE FORAKER. 



/^ 



^jTuncml ©bjsrquieis and iHemoir 

of 

U)t)o pa0sfrd to Ijer tiratjenly Ijomr, on 

iFriDat!, 51ul^ SSttj, at 5 a, a^., 

in l^illsboro, 0^. 



IX^ 



CINCINNATI, O. 
Press of Curts & Jennings 

1899 



1 



"6artb'fi trancitorp tbinic tjrrap; 
2[ta pomp, itfi plrastitro paos aiuap 
■Cut the omcct mnuoii' of the jooU 
S^nbcsiBto in tbr uiriocttutic." 



/ 



/ 



ON Sunday, July 30, 1899, the funeral of the 
eminent saint and noble woman, who passed 
to her rest two days before at the home of her 
daughter, Mrs. M. McKeehan, was held in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church of Hillsboro, O., at 
10 A. M. The people attended from all parts of the 
county, as well as the citizens of Hillsboro, with 
whom for so many years she had worshiped in 
the Lord's house. The hymns selected and sung 
were of her own choosing, and were the same used 
at the funeral of her lamented husband, Henry S. 
Foraker, about a year before. They were, first, 
"Jesus, Lover of my soul;" reading the first part of 
the thirty-seventh Psalm — which also was her selec- 
tion—by her pastor, Rev. U. LeSourd. The nine- 
teenth Psalm was read by Rev. M. J. Redkey, of 
Leesburg. Prayer was ofi"ered by Rev. T. H. Pearne, 
D. D., presiding elder, and formerly Mr. Foraker's 
pastor. Then the hymn, "It is well with my soul," 



was sung. 



The following discourse was delivered by Dr. 
Peame: 



ilDDrrss bv i\t\i. C O. 13farnf, r>. 



r>. 



I do not select the following Scripture passages to 
expound them, but simply as suggesting suitable 
lines of thought on this occasion. Psalm cxvi, 15: 
" Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of 
his saints." Why is the death of saints precious in 
God's sight ? It is the crowning of a human life, 
longer or shorter, of devotion to God. It is the 
flowering of the growing plant of hope in full and 
endless fruition. It is the grand consummation of all 
we have desired or wi.shed below. This statement is 
true of all saints — the older, the younger, the expe- 
rienced, or the inexperienced. It will always be 
true, as long as saints live or die, that their deaths 
are precious in God's sight, for the Lord says so. 

Acts xiii, 36 : " For David, after he had .served his 
own generation by the will of God, fell on .sleep, and 
he was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption." 
David served his own generation. He was a helping 
factor in his own generation, and among the people 
of his own day or country. He was all this ; and 
all this he did by the will of God. God wants us to 
serve our own generation. When we thus serve our 
own generation we do the will of God. God will 
make us equal to this high doing. When we have 
faithfully done God's will by serving our own genera- 
tion, we shall fall on sleep. God will rock the cradle 
for our slumber, and we shall be laid unto our fathers, 

4 



/ 



and we shall see corruption, as our fathers did. Not 
because we are so good or bad, but because we have 
done the will of God in serving our own generation. 
These two passages teach us that God loves us as 
his saints, both while we are living and when we are 
dying. He will gather us to our fathers, and while 
our flesh shall see corruption, yet God will preserve 
our dead bodies, and, in his own good time, he will 
raise us up, and our bodies will be fashioned like 
unto Christ's glorious body. 

" My flesh shall slumber in the ground 
Till the last trumpet's joyful sound." 

While we arc living, God loves us as his saints. 

" But saints are lovely in his sight ; 
He views his children with delight ; 
He sees their hope, he knows their fear, 
He looks and loves his image there." 

And when we are dying, God loves us, because 
he says, " Precious in the sight of the Lord is the 
death of his saints." After God's saints die, he takes 
care of their bodies. Every good person who lives 
thus is well pleasing to God. His saints fulfill his 
high purpose, that the generations of saints shall 
meet the needs and furnish help to those about them. 
So Jesus says, "Ye are the salt of the earth." Have 
salt in yourselves that you may conserve others. 
Ye are the light of the world. " Let your light so 
shine before men that they may see your good works, 
and glorify your Father which is in heaven." And 
when we shall have accomplished this mission which 

5 



God has assigned us, we shall fall on sleep. Death 
is now represented as a sleep from which God will 
awaken us in due time. Jesus said of his friend 
Lazarus, when he knew that he was really dead, 
" Our friend Lazarus sleepeth." And so the apostle 
assures us: "Them that sleep in Jesus shall God 
bring with him." Death is not a grim, fearful spec- 
ter to frighten us and to hold us in terror. " Death 
is the gate to endless joy ; why should we dread to 
enter there ?" 

" It is not death to die, — 

To leave this weary road, 
And, with the brotherhood on high, 
To be at home with God. 

It is not death to fear 

The wrench that sets us free 
From dungeon chain, to breathe the air 

Of boundless liberty. 

It is not death to fling 

Aside this mortal dust, 
And rise, on strong, exulting wing, 

To live among the just." 

There is no person I ever knew, of whom, as to 
her saintship, I could say so much in approval, and 
not go beyond due bounds, as I can of Mrs. Foraker. 
The beautiful biography is classic in its lovely style, 
and it does not exaggerate our sister's graces. For 
fourscore years no one could impeach or doubt her 
sincerity. She was one of the Lord's own saints. 
In her life he loved her. Her death was precious in 
his sight. Her life was so pure, so noble, so exalted, 
she has left the strong impress of her great person- 

6 



ality upon all who knew her; upon her many sur- 
vivors in this community, where she has lived for 
fourscore years. During that great revival of fifty- 
eight years ago, she was the first one to separate her- 
self from the world and unite herself to God's peo- 
ple, and two hundred followed her example. Nearly 
all of her kindred have honored and imitated her 
faith. Character is not so much attested by years as 
by deeds and by real moral uprightness. God re- 
wards moral virtue, not so much in proportion to a 
generation of service for the Master, as according to 
the measure of honest toil for the Master in saving 
our own creneration. 

Mrs. Foraker was such a wife and such a mother, 
grandmother, and great-grandmother, that in those 
relations her character shines out in true and grand 
moral sublimity. Who can tell the strength, depth, 
and purity of a mother's love? I have known 
mothers who cheerfully and actually sacrificed their 
own lives to promote the happiness and preserve the 
lives of their children. 

I can never forget my own dear mother. Her 
image is always before me. Her example of unself- 
ish, self-sacrificing love for her children has been to 
me like ointment poured forth. Her sweet, patient, 
kindly words are ever a precious, abiding memory. 
The memory of her maternal kiss of approving 
aflfection still fascinates and thrills me. Her never- 
ceasing service and toil for her children can never 
be forgotten. Her strong, persistent faith that all 
her children would be gathered into the heavenly 
fold, was wonderful, and wonderfuly answered in the 

7 



i/JT 



salvation of all the children. Her very life has been 
so interwoven with the holiest and sweetest mem- 
ories of my whole being that I can never be sepa- 
rated from her, in thought and being, forever; and 
so our dear departed friend, who has so recently been 
translated, strongly reminds me of the loss I suffered 
when my mother passed to her endless rest. 

When Dorcas died, the survivors who had shared 
her active sympathy held up the garments she had 
made for them, and wept aloud at their great loss. 
Their flowing tears and piteous wail showed the 
depth and sincerity of their grief. When any one 
loses such a shining example of helpfulness and 
service, the loss is irreparable ; and such to her seven 
children and to her numerous grandchildren and 
great-grandchildren, and also and especially to her 
spiritual children, has been our beloved mother in 
Israel for the last threescore years. 

Who can tell how far and how happily she has 
impressed her strong personality upon her children 
and others, as "a savor of life unto life?" Mrs. Su- 
sannah Wesley, the mother of John and Charles Wes- 
ley, reared a family of nineteen children to adult 
years. Not one of them was lacking in strong, 
manly, and womanly elements of character. When 
she lay dying she said to her children, "When the 
breath leaves my body, sing hymns of praise to God 
for his great mercies to me and to my children." If 
there is such a thing as moral heredity — and I believe 
there is, for Paul's description of Timothy's faith and 
zeal and piety Paul ascribed to the faith of his 
mother and grandmother — then the significance and 



^<fv3 



value of Mother Foraker's life are most conspicuous, 
in their deep import, in the comparison. 

The mother of Moses showed the value and 
power of her training in the culture and achieve- 
ments of Moses, the organizer and lawgiver of his 
own people and of all the civilized nations of the 
world. The mothers of John the Baptist, and John 
the Divine, and of Washington, Lincoln, Garfield, and 
Grant, have illustrated the same law of moral heredity. 

The contagion of Mrs. Foraker's faith and pur- 
pose is seen in the strong hold she has had upon the 
people of this community and this Church, of which 
for nearly threescore years she has been an honored 
member. The deep sense of our loss in her removal 
is in proof in the same lines. Who can estimate the 
value of such a personality in any family or Church 
or community? Her associates and descendants are 
all the richer, stronger, and better for their great 
heritage in her noble life. To her numerous rela- 
tives and associates she was the prophet and the 
evangel of unspeakable good. While earth is made 
poorer by her removal, heaven is all the sweeter, 
richer, and diviner for her accession to its inhabitants. 

The heavenly magnets will draw all the more 
strongly her true friends and kindred towards the 
home beyond the stars to which she has ascended. 
Our loss is her eternal gain. Earth is poorer and 
heaven is richer by her departure. 

" The soul of our sister is gone to heighten the triumphs above, 
Exalted to Jesus' throne, embraced in the arms of his love ; 
With songs let us follow her flight, escaped to the mansions of 
light, 

And entered the palace of God." 

9 



The poet says : 

" O, if my Lord would come and meet, 

My soul would stretch her wings in haste, 
Fly, fearless, through death's iron gate, 
Nor feel the terrors as she passed." 

But the Lord does come and meet his own. He 
promised his disciples that he would come and re- 
ceive them unto himself in the Father's house of 
many mansions. That promise he fulfilled to our 
beloved friend. He came for her. Last Tuesday 
she was in an ecstasy of rapture, and she praised 
him and «;lorified him for his presence and power. 
When she had accomplished her service of her gen- 
eration by the will of God, almost literally and really 
she fell on sleep, so painlessly and quietly was her 
passage made that it was more like a translation 
than like death. Beautifully has the poet described 
the Christian's triumphant passage hence : 

" The deathbed of the just is yet undrawn 
By mortal hands; it merits a divine. 
Angels should paint it, angels ever there, 
There on a post of honor and of joy. . . . 
Through nature's wreck, through vanquished agonies, 
What gleams of joy, what more than human peace ! 
Her comforters she comforts, great in ruins. 
With unreluctant grandeur gives, not yields, 
Her soul sublime, and closes wnth her fate. 
Her closing hour brings glory to her God ; 
Man's glory Heaven vouchsafes to call its own. 
We gaze, we weep; mixed tears of grief and jov! 
Amazement strikes, devotion bursts to flame ! 
Christians adore and infidels believe! 
Sweet peace and heavenly hope and humble joy 
Divinely beam on her exalted soul ; 
Destruct'on gilds and crowns her for the skies 
With incommunicable luster bright !" 

lo 



z' a ^ 



Another poet lias described the glory of such a 
death scene : 

'■ vital spark of heavenly flame. 
Quit, O quit, this mortal frame ; 
Trembling, hoping, lingering, flying, 
O the pain, the bliss of dying ! 
Cease, fond nature, cease thy strife. 
And let me languish into life. 

Hark! they whisper; angels say, 
' Sister spirit, come away ! ' 
What is this absorbs me quite — 
Steals my senses, shuts my sight. 
Drowns my spirit, draws my breath? — 
Tell me, my soul, can this be death ? — 

The world recedes — it disappears ; 
Heaven opens on my eyes ; my ears 
With sounds seraphic ring! 
Lend, lend your wings, I mount ! I fly ! 
O Grave, where is thy victory ? 

Death, where is thy sting ?" 

Bishop IMcKendree, who died early in the century, 
said to his friends, as the death-dew was resting on 
his face : 

" What 's this that steals, that steals upon my frame ? 
Is it death ? Is it death ? 
If this be death, I soon shall be 
From everj- sin and sorrow free; 

1 shall the King of Glory see ; 
All is well, all is well ! " 

A ministerial friend of mine lay in a comatose 
state. Just before his death he became conscious 
and opened his eyes and said: " I see a light." 
" What is it like ? " " Brighter than ten thousand 
suns." "How large is it?" "Large as eternity." 



II 






He then expired. Our works siir\'ive us. "Blessed 
are tlie dead who die in the Lord. They rest from 
their lal)ors, and their works do follow them." 
Whittier thus describes this : 

" With silence only as their bcneilictioii, 
Itod's nn^els come ; 
Where, iu the shadow of n ^rcat affliction, 
The soul sits tluuib. 

Yet would wc say, wh.it every heart approveth, 

Our leather's will. 
Calling to Him the dear ones whom He loveth. 

Is tncrcy still. 

Not unto thee or thine the solemn angel 

Hath evil wrought: 
The funeral anthem is a glud evangel— 

The good die not ! 

God calls our loved ones, but we lose not wholly 

What He hath given; 
They live on earth, in thought snd deed, as truly 

As in His heaven." 

The resurrection trumpet sliall sound, and they 
that hear shall live. 

" Hark ! a voice divitles the sky, — 
Happy arc the faithful dead I 
In the Lord who sweetly die, 

Thcv from all tlu-ir toils arc fn-r.l." 

Then shall come tiie tiual victory. 

** Grave, the guardian of our dust. 

Crave, the treasury of the skies, 
Rvery atom of thy trust 

Rests in hope again to rise : 
Hark ! the judgment trumpet calls : 

' Soul, rebuild thy house of clay ; 
Immortality thy walls, 

And eternity thy day !' " 

13 



V 



It pays to be good. Eternity outiiieasures time. 
** \'erily there is a reward for the righteous." God 
will eternally enrich his saints with that reward. 
Broken circles shall be reunited. Somehow- or some- 
where, " Heaven's eternal bliss shall pay for all 
God's children suffer here." 

Christianity is better than infidelity. We shall 
meet beyond the river. "Not lost, but gone before," 
are our Christian friends who die. 

The loving tribute of a granddaughter next fol- 
lowed. It was read by Rev. M. LeSourd, who had 
charge of the funeral .services: 

Ciibutf bv tl9isBf annir j^oraUrr iBcLirrbau. 

Margaret Rcere Forakcr, wife of the late Henry 
S. Foraker, died at the residence of her daughter, 
Mrs. M. McKcehan, on East Walnut Street, last Fri- 
day, July 28th. In the still hours of the morning, 
just as the day was breaking, she closed her eyes on 
the long night of life on earth, and opened them 
upon eternal day in heaven. 'T was the passing 
away of a saintly soul into the realms of the "great 
beyond," there to receive the reward of the righteous 
at the hands of a blessed Redeemer. While death 
has robbed the many kindred of a kind and loving 
one, yet 't is not a time for mourning and weeping, 
for God had already added to the promised "three- 
score and ten years " another half score, and in that 
time so faithfully had her life's work been done, and 
so complete her mission fulfilled, that it would only 

13 



be selfish to wisli t«-) prolong years of trouble and 
necessary snfTering when so great a reward awaited 
her pure and righteous spirit. 

In paying any tribute to her memory, nothing 
too praisewortln- can be said ; for her life was a type 
of Christian character not commonly found. She 
was a woman of marked individuality. Broad- 
minded, clear-sighted, always cheerful, fervent in 
spirit, serving the Lord ; ever ready in times of 
sickness or death to lend a sympathetic and minis- 
tering hand, and always charitable to the poor, her 
name in the community is a synonym of goodness, 
so that all people praise her for her good works. 
Her children, also, rise up and call her blessed. The 
shining example and ])recious memory which she 
leaves them are a greater heritage than wealth can 
afford. 

Margaret Reece Foraker was born at the old 
Reece Mills, near Rainsboro, Ohio, in the year 1820. 
Her parents were among the pioneers of this State, 
having emigrated in the early part of the nineteenth 
century. She was the fourth cliild in a family of 
seven, all of whom, witli the exception of two, an 
elder sister, who died but a few years ago, and one 
who died in infancy, survived her. 

A remarkable incident in this family is the fact 
that they have all resided within a radius of ten 
miles of each other, during their entire lives, which 
has covered, in the youngest, a period of seventy 
years. Seldom does a family remain so united ; and 
so good and true have their lives been that not the 



14 



shadow of a doubt remains, but that they will be a 
united family in heaven. 

On the 28th of March, 1839, Margaret Reece was 
united in marriage to Henr>- S. Foraker. A long 
and unusually happy wedded life was permitted 

them. 

In 1889 they celebrated their golden wedding, 
and still nine years were added to these. 

Eleven children blessed this union, three of 
whom, with the dear husband, gone but a year 
hence, awaited her coming in the heavenly home. 

In 184 1, Margaret Foraker united with the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, being the first one to offer 
her heart to God among the two hundred that fol- 
lowed. From that time until her death she never 
turned from the path of duty, but was always noted 
for her unswerving faith and fidelity to the cause of 
Christ. Hers was a service of love and devotion. 
At all times she had the courage to stand by her 

convictions. 

During the Crusade movement against the liquor- 
traffic in our town, in 1873, she was one of the active 
workers. A memorial chair, commemorative of her 
good works at that time, has been placed in the 
Crusade Memorial room of the new Presbyterian 
Church by the loving hands of her sons and 

daughters. 

Many kindred survive her, among whom are 
twenty-seven grandchildren and eight great-grand- 
children. 

She died as she had lived, an earnest Christian, 



15 



and when the end came, "it was well with her soul."' 
" God's fin^^er touched her, and she slept." 

" O rest of rest ! O peace serene, eternal ! 
Thou ever livest, Thou olmn^est never; 
Anil in the secret of thy presence dwelleth 
FuUue&s of joy forever ami forever." 

U'orOQ bv UfU. tP. Lr^ourD. 

Mother Foraker is ^one. Last Friday morning, 
just as the sun was rising over the eastern hills, the 
lij^jht from the Celestial Hill broke on her vision, 
the dawning of an eternal day. 

No sooner had she clo.sed her eyes to the earthly 
scenes than she opened them to tlic heavenly. No 
sooner had she ceased to hear the voices of loved 
ones around her bedside than she heard the voices 
from the invisible world, and, above all, the voice of 
Jesus, .saying: " It is enough ; come up higher. Well 
done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faith- 
ful over a few things, I will make thee niler over 
many things. Flnter thou into the joy of thy Lord." 

We are all the creatures of two worlds, and for 
several weeks Mother Foraker had been thinking of 
exchanging worlds. During her days of waiting she 
spent many hours in meditation : looking backward 
over time, and forward into eternity ; looking back- 
ward to see how she had lived, and forward to sec 
what awaited lier ; looking backward to recall the 
joys and sorrows through which .she had pas.sed, and 
forward to behold the crown and glory. 

On this mount betwi.xt two worlds, in her medita- 
tion she could say with Paul : '* I am now ready to 

16 



be offered, and the time of my departure is at hatid. 
I have fought a good fight, I have fi.ushed my 
course, I have kept the faith : henceforth there is 
laid up for me a crown of righteousness, winch the 
Lord, the Righteous Judge, shall give me in that day : 
and not to mc only, but unto all them also that love 

his appearing." , 

Mother Forakcr had a right estimate of hfe ; she 
knew it to be a battle- a conflict. Hosv often she 
has sung : 

"Are there no foes for me to face? 
Must I not stem the flood? 
Is this vile world a friend to grace. 
To help me on to God? 

Sure I must fiKht. if I would reign; 

Increase my courage, Lord; 
I'll bear the toil, endure the pain, 

Supported by thy word. 

Thy saints in all this glorious war 
Shall conquer, though they die : 

Thev see the triumph from afar, 
By faith they bring it nigh." 

She was a woman of great faith in God and in 
prayer. A short tin.e before her death, «'"•; ^'""'g 
at her bedside, she told me this incident: 'When I 
was thirtv vears of age I was very ill, and the physi- 
cian told a member of the family that I could no 
recover, .-^s it was whispered from one to another, I 
overheard it. I looked about on my six children 
and then tried to think of some one whom I could 
trust to care for them and train them for the Lord_ 
I could not think of au)- one. Then I remembered 



^1 



Hezekiali, to whom the Lord sent the message by 
the prophet Isaiah, saying: 'Set thine house in 
order ; for thou shalt die and not live. Then Heze- 
kiah turned his face to the wall and prayed unto the 
Lord, and said, Remember now, O Lord, I beseech 
thee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and 
with a perfect heart, and have done that which is 
good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. Then 
the Lord sent the word to Hezekiali, I have heard 
thy prayer, I have seen thy tears ; behold, I will add 
to thy days fifteen years.' 

"Then," said she, "I turned my face to the wall 
and prayed and wept, and asked the Lord to let me 
live thirty years more, until I should be sixty, that 
I might see my children grown to manhood and 
womanhood. The Lord heard my prayer and per- 
mitted me to train those six children, and gave me 
five more. He also placed in my care the children 
of others, and instead of giving me thirty years he 
has given me fifty." Mother Foraker was quick to 
perceive duty, and when duty was made plain she 
never faltered, but was ever true to her convictions ; 
and her influence lives. 

As Paul lives in his Epistles, and Robert Raikes 
in the Sunday-schools ; as John Wesley lives in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and Charles Wesley in 
the hymns we sing, — so Mother Foraker lives in the 
hearts of this large congregation who have known 
and loved her. 

She was faithful in her home, to her neighbors, 
and to her Church. She was a great power in prayer. 
She loved her class-meeting. Only a few days before 

i8 



/•3 



her death she told me of her joyful experience the 
evening before while the Epworth League service 
was being held. " My soul," she said, "was so filled 
with the Spirit of God, I shouted his praises. I 
shouted just as I used to shout in class-meeting." 

She crreatly enjoyed such songs as " Jesus, Lover 
of my soul," "It is well with my soul," and "We 
shall meet beyond the river." 

The Word of God, as it was read to her, was 
manna to her soul. I asked her if the ringing of the 
church bell, so close to her sick-room, disturbed her. 
She replied, " No, I love to hear it ring." She had 
a rio-ht estimate of death. It means departure — 
leavhig these earthly scenes and going home to die 
no more. It means reuniting with loved ones, and 
enjoying the visible presence of the Savior forever. 

As I visited her from time to time, and saw her 
sitting in an easy-chair or bolstered up in bed, I 
thought of Dr. Payson, who, near the close of his life, 
wrote to his sister, in substance : " I am sitting at 
mv window, waiting and watching for the hackman 
to^ come. My trunk is packed ; everything is ready. 
The Celestial City is in full view ; its breezes fan 
mv cheeks ; its music is wafted to my ear. 

' I am almost home.' " 

So Mother Foraker was ready and waiting to de- 
part this life, and longing to be forever with the Lord. 
She had a right estimate of heaven m this, that 
heaven has not only fulfilled but surpassed her ex- 
pectations. The crown and all its glories awaited 
her. St. John speaks of a Crown of Life ; St. Peter 

19 



speaks of a Crown of Glory ; St. Paul speaks of a 
Crown of Rejoicing and a Crown of Righteousness. 
We, in this world, can not fully comprehend what 
these signify ; but we know they are a part of the 
Christian's inheritance. You may give wings to your 
imagination in contemplating boundless eternity, un- 
dying love, fullness of joy, and the glories of the 
saints in heaven, and yet you will have in mind but 
a faint picture of what Sister Foraker possesses 
to-day. 

How comforting the thought that we know where 
she is gone, and that we, too, know the way, for 
Jesus says, " I am the Way!" 

Shall we meet again ? Yes, we will again see each 
other's face ; again clasp each other's hand ; again 
hear each other's voice; again enjoy each other's 
fellowship. 

Mother Foraker was one of the noblest Christian 
characters I have ever known. May her mantle fall 
upon many ! 

" Servant of God, well done ! 
Th)' glorious warfare 's past ; 
The battle 's fought, the race is won. 
And thou art crowned at last." 

ifrom t\)e Roman's; €l)ti&tmn tEcmpcrancc ^nion* 

" These are they who have contended for their Savior's honor 
long." 

By the request of the President, Mrs. Eliza J. 
Thompson, the Woman's Christian Temperance 
Union, of Hillsboro, tender a tribute to the memory 

20 



?s- 



of our beloved and faithful member, Mrs. Margaret 
Reece Foraker, and also extend to the family the 
sympathy of the Union. 

Few appellations of the Woman's Christian Tem- 
perance Union are more appreciated than the loving 
one, " Organized Motherhood." The brave Crusade 
leaders had a mother heart for humanity, as well as 
for the members of the tender home circle. They 
were types of rare, heroic womanhood, who made 
the most of opportunity; and conscientiously re- 
sponded to the call twenty-five years ago, and 
stepped forward from the old Presbyterian Church 
of Hillsboro, out into the wind and weather of De- 
cember storms, and, with prayer for their weapon, 
inaugurated the great reform movement which has 
made Hillsboro known to the world ; and Margaret 
Reece Foraker was a valued and helpful member of 
the Hillsboro band of Crusaders. 

Possessed of vigorous Christian strength, gentle- 
ness of heart, and simplicity of character, she bore 
alike honor and trial with modest composure, and 
she stood in the Woman's Christian Temperance 
Union, as elsewhere, an example to be imitated and 
beloved. She "tested love by the right rule, what 
it is willing to do for others," and her knot of white 
ribbon meant human kindness, sympathy, and 
courage. 

The elegant chair given by her sons and 
daughters, sacred to the memory of Mrs. Foraker, in 
the Crusade Memorial room of the new Presbyterian 
Church, will ever be held in grateful appreciation 
and honor by the society she was ever loyal to. 



21 



f-^ 



During Mrs. Foraker's last illness her ripe relig- 
ious nature had little effort to fasten faith upon "the 
evidence of things not seen;" and she waited through 
much suffering patiently and calmly, for " it was 
well with her soul." Another Crusade leader has 
gone, but the great work she loved is better for her 
prayers and loyalty. 

" Beautiful twilight at set of sun, 
Beautiful goal with race well run, 
Beautiful rest with work well done." 



^f/ 



THE GOLD PLANK 



Of the National Republican Platform of 1896 
The Story of its Adoption. 



In The Metropolitan for September is an article written by 
William Eugene Lewis, in which, speaking of Mr. H. H. Kohl- 
saat, it is stated that 

•' Mr. Kohlsaat drafted the gold plank of the Republican 
platform " (of 1896) >i< * * " Mr. Kohlsaat perceived that 
the fight would be on finance and nothing could be gamed by 
evasioii. He presented the resolution to the committee and in^ 
sisted upon its incorporation in the platform. He placed strong 
political friendships in peril, for men as close and_ even closer to 
the candidate than he— if any more intimate relations could exist 
than those between the editor and the candidate— were emphati- 
cally of the opinion that it was the part of unwisdom to declare 
for gold coinage. They were overcome, and the rest is known, 
The editor had guessed right." 

I have seen substantially this same statement several times 
repeated, and have never seen any denial of it. Mr. Lewis has 
no doubt repeated it in perfect good faith, believing, and in the 
absence of denial he had a right to believe it to be strictly true. 
Nevertheless it is untrue. Mr. Kohlsaat necessarily knows this, 
and being the editor of a newspaper has good facilities for con^ 
tradicting it, but so far as I am aware, he has not done so. 

If the subject is worth discussing at all, in the interest of 
true history, and for fear Mr. Kohlsaat may Ije misled l^y apparent 
acquiescence into the belief that nobody knows any better, and 
that after all he probably did something of tlie kind narrated, 
the truth should be made knowai by somebody. 

I had opportunity to know what occurred and all that oc- 
curred before or in connection with the Committee on Resolutions 
of the Republican National Convention of 1896, for I was not 



f ^ 



only a member of the committee, but I was chairman of both the 
committee that reported the platform and the sub-committee that 
framed it. I was present and presided at all the meetings of both 
the committee and sub-committee when the platform or anj- part 
of it was under consideration, and necessarily knew' ever3-thing 
that transpired. Besides, I have a complete, stenographically 
kept record of all that occurred, showing all communications to 
the committee and the sub-committee, and showing the appear- 
ance of all persons who came before these committees or either of 
them, and what thej^ appeared for. There is no mention of Mr. 
Kohlsaat in the record, and every member of the committee who 
has any recollection on the subject knows that he never appeared 
before the committee or the sub-committee in any connection or for 
any purpose whatever. More than that, so far as I can now re- 
call, his name was never mentioned by any member of either 
committee in coiniection with the platform < r any proposition in 
it. There were a great man\- " financial i)lanks " and resolutions 
on the " m(jne\- question " .sent to the committee, and brought to 
the committee, and in one wa\- or another presented to the 
committee for consideration, but not one was iilentified in any 
way whatever with Mr. KoliLsaat, or l:is name. I have still in 
my pos.session every such resolution, all properly labeled, but 
none of them bears his name or any endorsement that has refer- 
ence to him. Tliis .should be enough to dispose of that part of 
the statement which credits Mr. Kohlsaat with " presenting the 
resolution that was adopted to the committee and insisting upon 
its adoption." 

That Mr. Kohlsaat favored some .such plank as w^as adopted 
I do not doubt, but if .so, he w^as but in harmony with ninet}^ per 
cent, of the leading Republicans of the country outside of the so- 
called free silver states ; and that he may have at some time, or 
in some manner, or for .somebody else's benefit, prepared a reso- 
lution of some kind is probably also true. It would have been 
strange if he had not, for the preparation of financial planks for 
that platform was very commonly indulged in shortly before and 
about the time of the convention by Republicans all over the 
country. Such resolutions were then being adopted by the dif- 
ferent state conventions ; they were being discussed by the news- 
papers and the people generally. Not only those who took an 
active part in politics, but business and professional men who had 



3 ^^f 

no thought of attending any convention, were giving expression 
to their ideas and striving to acceptably formulate them. The 
great number of these resolutions that were sent to the commit- 
tee, and which I still have in my ])ossession, show all this. They 
show more than this. They show tliat outside of the silver 
states, among the leading Republicans of the country, there was 
an overwhelming sentiment in favor of an unequivocal declaration 
in favor of maintaining the existing gold standard and opposing 
the free and unlimited coinage of silver. Almost every re.solu' 
lion on the subject that came to the committee was, in effect, of 
this character, though many of tlieni were objectionable because 
of their prolixity or phraseology. 

So that if Mr. Kohlsaat had prepared such a resolution, and 
presented it to the committee, he would have been only acting in 
harmony with the leading men of his jiart}' all over the countr}-. 
It is probable, however, that he did find some people "close to the 
candidate' ' who were divsposed to be more conservati\e with respect 
to such a declaration than the Republicans of the country generally 
were, and it is possible that hiscontr -versy with them was such as 
to strain relations and "imperil political friendships." If so, Mr. 
Kohlsaat should be allowed full credit for what he ma\- have done 
in this regard, but to enable us to judge rii^htly he ought to tell 
us all about it. 

To recur now to the authorship of the plank that was 
adopted, a few days before I started to St. Louis the Honorable 
J. K. Richards, now Solicitor General of the United States, then 
ex-Attorney General of Ohio, and an intimate personal and po- 
litical friend of President McKinley, called upon me at Cincin- 
nati, coming directly from Canton, where he had been given 
some resolutions in regard to tlie money and tariff questions, 
which had been prepared by the friends of President McKinley 
and with his approval, and which it was desired I should take 
charge of in view of my probable membership of the Committee 
on Resolutions, with a view to having them incorporated in the 
platform. They have never been out of my pos.ses.sion from then 
until now, and are as follows ; 

"The Repul)lican party is unreservedly for .sound money. 
It is unalterably opposed to every effort to debase oiu' currency 
or di-sturb our credit. It resumed specie payments in 1879, and 
since then it has made and kept every dollar as good as gold. 



o^ 



This it will continue to do, maintaining all the money of the 
United States, whetlier gold, silver or paper, at par with the best 
money of the world and up to the standard of the most en- 
lightened governments. 

"The Republican party favors the use of silver along with 
gold to the fullest extent consistent with the maintenance of the 
parity of the two metals. It would welcome bi-metallism ba.sed 
upon an international ratio, but until that can be secured it is 
the plain duty of the United States to maintain our present 
standard, and we are therefore opposed under existing condi- 
tions to the free and unlimited coinage of silver at sixteen to 
one. 

"The importance at all times of sound money can not be 
overstated, but of paramount importance today is the restoration 
of prosperity through a return to the American policy of pro- 
tection. Onr money today is .sound ; the people are satisfied 
with its .soundness, but they are not sati.sfied either with the 
condition of the country or the condition of the national treas- 
ury. 

" Unmindfid of the les.sons of experience, the present Demo- 
cratic administration inaui^urated a policy looking toward ulti- 
mate free trade, which has deranged business, depleted onr rev- 
enues, crippled our industries and dealt labor a .serious blow. 
With deplorable incompetenc>- it has failed to rai.se revenue 
enongli to run the Government, and has had to borrow, in the 
last three \ears, $200,000,000, mainly to pay ordinar}- rnnning 
expenses, sellin.i; in secret to favored foreign syndicates the 
bonds of the Government at ])rices far below their actual value. 

" It is time to return to the policy of better (and happier) 
days. Tile Republican parly beheves that the income of the 
Government should equal its necessary and proper expenditures. 
It does not believe in deficits or the issue of interest bearing 
bonds in time of peace. It believes that our work .should be done 
at home and not abroad, and to that end renews its devotion to 
the principles of a protective tariff, which, while providing ade- 
quate revenue for the uses of the Government, .shall restore 
American wages and American production, and serve the highest 
interests of American labor and American development." 

When a tew days later I went to vSt. Louis I traveled with 
the Honoral)le Charles Kinor\- Smith, now Postmaster-General, 
and Mr. Murat Halstead. I showed them the resolutions on the 
train, and we were all of the opinion that, while they contained 
much that was good, they .should be more conci.se, more explicit, 
and not .'-eek to make the tariff question " paramount," and that 
if adopted they should first be corrected accordingly. Mr. Smith 
had made a rough draft of the material parts of a platform, in- 
cluding a money plank. He read it to Mr. Halstead and myself, 
and after going over it we were of the opinion that, reserving the 



5 



financial part for further consideration, with very few unimport- 
ant changes it would be well to adopt what he had written. His 
money plank read as follows : 

"Public and private credit, business safety and confidence, 
the worth of wa-es and the honor and security of all commercial 
intercouree depend upcm a standard of value and a sound and s a- 
ble currencv A debasement of the standard and consequent de- 
TDreciation of the currency destroys faith, robs labor drives away 
capital increases the rates of interest, burdens the l^orrower, 
paralyses enterprise and inflicts incalculable injury upon all ex- 
Sptthe monev changers. Gold, silver a.;d convertible paper 
xvith every dollar of every kind constantly exchangeable and 
equivalent to every other dollar, constitute our established cur- 
rencv We favor the use of silver to the extent at which its 
naritv with gold can be maintained ; but we are opposed to the 
free unlimited and independent coinage of silver and to _ any 
change in the existing gold standard except by international 
agreement," 

I presented all that he furnished to the sub-committee, and 
with very slight changes the sub-committee adopted what he 
wrote uniil the money plank was reached. In this way it came 
about that substantially the entire platform down to the money 
plank was the work of Mr. Smith. 

On my arrival at St. Louis I consulted with Senator Hanna 
and other friends of the President with regard to the financial 
plank. I explained to them the objections that had been made 
to the resolutions that had been given me by Mr. Rich.ards, and 
told them also that there was .some objection to the prominence 
the resolutions gave to bi-metalli.sm. Senator Hanna said they 
would give the matter further consideration and advise with me 
later. A day or two afterwards he handed me the following, 
which was his last expression on the subject before the committee 
acted, so far as I was informed : 

"The Republican party is unreservedly for sound money. 
It is unalterably oppo.sed to every effort to debase our currency or 
disturb our credit. It resumed specie payments in 1879, aiicl 
since then has made and kept every dollar as good as gold It 
will continue to maintain all the money of the United States, 
whether coin or paper, at par with the best money of the world, 
and always equal to the standard of its most enlightened govern- 

^^^^" "it favors the use of as much silver for currency as possible, 
consistent with maintaining the parity of gold and .silver. 

" It would welcome international bi-metalhsm ; but until an 



international agreement as to silver coinag-e is secured, it is the 
plain duty of the United States to maintain our present standard; 
and we are, therefore, under present conditions, opposed to the 
free and unlimited coinage of silver at sixteen to one. 

"The money of the United States in circulation todav is ab- 
solutely sound. The people are satisfied with its soundness ; but 
they are not satisfied with either the condition of tlie national 
treasury or the industrial condition of the country. 

" The Treasury of the United states is deficient, except as it 
is supplied by loans, and the people are suffering because there is 
scanty demand either for their labor or tlie products of tlieir labor. 
Here is the fundamental trouble, the remedy for which is Repul)- 
lican opportunity and duty. We must first of all supply enough 
money to run the Government and meet its increasing needs. 
We must stop loans and the issue of interest-bearing Ijonds to 
meet the ordinary expenses of the Government, which has in- 
evitably attended tlie unfortunate tariff policy, adopted by the 
present administtation. 

" The income of the Government must equal its necessary 
and proper expenditures. 

" It is another plain duty of the people, and their manifest 
purpose, from which nothing will divert them, to return to the 
American policy of protection, whicli has always encouraged 
American production and afforded employment to American labor 
at American wages. 

" The Republican party believes that our work should be 
done at home and not abroad, and to that end renews its devotion 
to the principles of a protective tariff, which, while supplying 
adequate revenue for the-uses of the Government, promotes'and 
defends American skill and enterprise and gives to labor its high- 
est reward." 

These and the Richards resolutions were both framed ana 
.submitted by the men "clo.se to the candidate," and it must have 
been in controversy over them that "the editor placed his strong 
political friendships in peril," if indeed any such thing occurred 
at all. 

But, however that may be, it will be observed that the "re- 
vised edition" differed but very Httle from the original and that 
the real objections had not been obviated, from which it follows 
that the "close friends" w^ere not "overcome," and that "the 
editor placed his political friendships in peril" without avail in- 
stead of successfully. 

In addition to the foregoing, as I have already said, many 
resolutions and suggestions on this subject were sent to the com- 
mittee. As a sample of them, and to show what the general sen- 
timent was, I quote only a very few. 



General Grosvenor submitted the following, wliicli he said 
lie had secured from Senator Sherman as his (Sherman's) idea of 
what should be adopted : 

""We are in favor of sound money Composed of gold and sib 
ver coins, and of notes of the United States carefully limited in 
amount redeemable in coin on demand, and of notes of National 
])anks fully secured by bonds of the United States and redeemable 
in coin on demand at their counters, and that both coin and notes 
shall be equal in purchasing power, it being the established policy 
of the United States to maintain the parity of the coins of the 
two metals upon the legal ratio or such ratio as may be provided 
by law, and that all paper money, whether issued by the United 
States or by National banks, shall be of equal value to coin and 
be redeemable in coin. 

"We are unalterably oppased to the free coinage of silver by 
the mints of the United States for the benefit of and on the de- 
mand of the holders of silver bullion. When needed for coinage 
silver bullion should l)e bought by the United States at its market 
value and coined at the legal ratio and maintained as now at par 
with gold. The w-ide disparity of the market value of the two 
metals from the legal ratio of coinage is such that the free coin- 
age of silver for personal profit would demonetize gold, w'ould es- 
tablish silver bullion as the sole standard of value, imi-air the ob- 
ligations of existing contracts, violate the public failh pledged in 
the bonds of the United Stales, and would strike a disastrous 
blow at the purchasing power of the wages of labor and of all the 
employments of life. We believe that the American people will 
respond to the demand that our country will keep its faith invio- 
late, and will co-operate with the principal nations of the world 
to secure a ratio betweeti silver and gold based upon commercial 
values." 

At the same time General Grosvenor, to supply an argument 
in answer to the objections that were being made in some quarters 
to any declaration favoring international bi-metallism, handed me 
a copy of the following 

Telegram to the Bi-Metallist Meeting in London, J 894: 

"We desire to express our cordial sympathy with the inove= 
ment to promote the restoration of silver by international agree 
ment, in aid of which we understand a meeting is to be held to- 
morrow, under your Uordship's presidency. We rjelieve that the 
free coinage of both gold and silver by international agreement at 
a fixed ratio would secure to mankind the blessings of a sufficient 
volume of metallic monej^ and, what is liardh' less important, 
would secure to the world of trade immunity from violent ex- 
change fluctuations. (Signed). John Sherman, William B. Al- 
li.son, D. W. Voorhees, H. C. Lodge, G. F. Hoar, N. W. Aldrich, 



8 

D. B. Hi'Il, E. Alurphv, C. S. Brice, O. H. Piatt, A. P. Gorman, 
W. P. Frye, C. K. Davis, S. M. Cullom, J. M. Gary." 

Governor Cheney, of New Hampshire, submitted the follow- 
ing : 

"We are firm and emphatic in our demand for honest money. 
We are unalterably opposed to any scheme or measure which 
threatens to debase our currency. We favor the use of silver as 
currency, but only to such extent and under such regulations as 
will enable us to maintain our present standard of values and the 
parity of all our money. We are emphatically opposed to the free 
and unlimited coinage of silver uidess by international agree- 
ment." 

Mr. Moore, member of the committee from Oregon, offered 
th.is, which I think had been adopted by the Oregon Republican 
State Convention : 

"The Republican party has always been the advocate of 
honest money ; it points with pride to its financial record (hu-ing 
the greenback movement. It was opposed to greenback inflation 
then ; it is opposed to silver inflation now. We beliexe that every 
dollar issued by the Government should have the same purchas- 
ing power as every other dollar. We are, therefore, in fa\-or of 
the maintenance of the present gold standard, and, except through 
international agreement, we are opposed to the free or unlimited 
coinage of silver." 

Col. ly. P. Tarlton, a delegate from Kentucky, offered the 
following; : 



*fe 



"We are opposed to the free and unlinn'ted coinage of silver 
at the ratio of i6 to i, or at an\- other ratio, unless by interna- 
tional agreement with the other great commercial Nations ; and 
therefore we demand that the existing gold standard of value be 
maintained, believing that the industrial interests of our people 
require that all exchanges in trade and the wages of labor should 
be based upon and paid in the money having the greatest intrinsic 
value and of the highest standard in the markets of the world ; at 
the same time we favor the use of silver in our currency to the 
extent only and under such regulations that its parity with gold 
shall be maintained." 

Senator Chandler offered the following section of the stat- 
utes : 

"And it is hereby declared to be the pohcy of the United 
States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard 
money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal in- 
trinsic and exchangealjle value, such equality to be secured 
through international agreement, or by such safeguards of legis- 



9 

-lation as will insure the maintenance of "the parity in value ol tht 
■coins of the two metals, and the equal power of every dollar a^ 
all times in the markets and in the payment of debts. And it is 
hereby further declared that the efforts of the Government should 
■be steadily directed to the establishment of such a ^afe system of 
bi-metallism as will maintain at all times the equal power of ever^' 
dollar coined or issued by the United States in -the markets and ifi 
the payment of debts. 

"Approved November i, 1893."' 

General James H. Wilson, of Delaware, offered the follow 



;ing 



"We are emphatic in our demands for sound money on the 
gold standard of value ; we favor the use of both silver and paper 
money, but to stich extent only and under such legislation as will 
surely maintain them at a parity with gold ; and we are opposed 
to the free, unlimited and independent coinage of silver."' 

George William Ballon sent the following telegram from Ne*" 

York: 

'■'June 14, 1-S96. 

'"'Gov. Forakc',\ Republican Headquarters, St. Louis, Mo.:- 

"At a conference here tocla\\ it was resolved to send you the 
following for money plank : 'Tnat the money of our country 
should be sustained and perpetuated upon as sound a basis as the 
money of the other great connnercial Nations and until such time 
as we can secure the co-operation of those Nitioiis, or sufficient of 
them, to establish and uphold the f;ee coinage of silver at 16 to i 
or upon any reasonable basis, the existing gold standard should 
be firmly maintained, so that at all times the interchangeable 
value of every dollar issued Ijy our Government, whether it be 
gold, silver or paper, shall be equal, and with surplus revenues 
provided for the Government in the future such equal inter- 
changeable cirrrency values can be as readily preserved as they 
have l)een, under like circumstances, in the past.' " 

Hon. Joseph H. Walker, of Massachusetts, Chairman of 
the House Committee on Banking and Currency, suggested the 
following : 

"We hereby pledge the Republican party to the maintenance 
of the present policy and practice of bi-metallism in its only practi- 
cal form, to secure the use of gold and silver as money at a parity 
and as bi-metallism is now maintained in this country, in Germany, 
in France and in other leading Nations. 

"That each coin and paper dollar paid to the farmer for his 
product, to the wage worker for his labor, and to all others, shall 
be kept at a parity with every other dollar. 

"We are therefore determinedly opposed to the destroying of 
bi-metallism and the establishment of a silver monometallism that 



10 

would mevitahry result from gaaranteemg to silver free and tra- 
limited coinage, excepting it be done in compliance with interna- 
tional agreement, 

"Wherefore we call upon every citizen, North, South, East 
and West, to- rally under the flag of our common country to pre- 
serve the honest dollar, to secure a fair day' spay tor a fair day's 
work to every citizen in tlie American system of protection, as in- 
dispensable to the welfare of the farmer, the wage worker, and to 
all others ; and all other questions being subsicliary to these two. 

" We hereby relegate their decision to the respective congres- 
sional districts throughout the various states." 

Not by any means the least influental of all we received ir^ 
helping us to the conclusion reached ^ was the following ; 

" New York, June i6, 1S96. 

•■' T/ie Chai7i7ta7i RetnMican National Co7tvention, Convention 
Hall, St. Louis, Mo.: 

" The undersigned respectfully request you to submit the fol- 
lowing to the committee on resolutions of your honorable con- 
vention. The German-American vSound Money Iveague, con- 
sisting of members of both parties, was organized to ascertain the 
attitude of the German-Americans in regard to the money ques- 
tion. The replies received from all over the United States 
justify the league in making the f.-llowiiig statement : 

"First. That of the five hundred and eighty-one German- 
American newspapers which discuss politics, five iiundred and 
one are in favor of the present gold standard, thirty -seven are for 
bi-metallism, or free coinage of silver and forty-three are doubt- 
ful. A majority of the newspapers from which answers have 
been received, are published west of the Alleghenies. 

"Second. The ninety per cent, of the German-American 
voters regard the money question ' as the most important issue in 
this campaign.' 

" Third, That they will support only that party which in its 
platform declares itstlf unequivocally in favor of the maintenance 
of the present gold standard ; and they will not vote for a presi- 
dential candidate who by his letter of acceptance does not pledge 
him.self to stand by his declaration. The party which will de- 
clare emphatically for the maintenance of the gold standard, will 
command a large majority of the German votes, regardless of the 
party affiliations. 

" For the German- American Sound Money lycague : 

" Osw^\LD Ottexdorfer, Jacob H. Schiff, 

" William Steixway, Theodore Sutro, 

" Carl Schurz, George F. Victor. 

" GusTAV H, Schwab, John F, Degener, 

" Louis Windmuller, Charles C. Wehrum, 

" EdwarL) Grosse, Dr. Charles Freidrich, 

" Ewald Fleitman, Herman Ridder. 
" Eouis F. Dommerich." 



If I may be permitted to speak of my own action, I suIj- 
snitted the following : 

" We believe in international bi-raetallism and are opposed 
to the free and unlimited coinage of silver nntil by an interna- 
tional agreement we can secure tlie maintenance of its parity with 
gold, and pledge ourselves until bi-metallisra can be thus secured 
to maintain the existing gold standard." 

Regarding it as in effect an equivalent, I also offered the fol- 
lowing : 

" We believe in bi-metallism, and are opposed to the free and 

unlimited coinage of silver until an international agreement can 

he secured, and pledge ourselves in the meanwhile to maintain 

• the existing monetary standard, with the use of silver, to the full 

extent that its parity can be maintained with gold." 

And so I might give scores of other contrihutions all to the 
same effect, but I have quoted enough, and they sufficiently rep- 
resent the different sections of the country, to show that all wis- 
dom with respect to this matter was not confined to one lone man 
in Chicago ; but that there was, on the contrary, a common trend 
of overwhelming sentiment in favor of an unequivocal declaration 
against free coinage of silver and in favor of the maintenance of 
the gold standard. When at one time din'ing the deHberations 
of the committee, it was reported that a strenuous effort would he 
made to omit the use of the word " gold " and declare only for a 
maintenance of the "existing standard," Mr. Lauterbach, of 
New York, and Senator Lodge, of Massachusets, both announced 
that if the committee should take such action, they wotild make 
a minority report and carry the fight into the convention. Others 
made similar declarations, Ijut I remember these two particularly 
because of their earnestness and the weight their declarations 
carried. It was not necessary for them, however, to make such 
a declaration because there was never at any time trouble on this 
point so far as the committee or sub-committee was concerned. 
This was early shown by the result of a poll of the committee 
with respect to this question publisr.ed in the Chicago papers im- 
mediately after the committee was appointed, as follows : 

' ' Committee on Resolutions. 

"This is the Committee on Resolutions as elected by the 
states. The list shows how they stand on the currency question 
as far as it could be secured : 



\y 



12" 



a 



"Arabama — H. V. Cashin,. existing standard". 
Arkansas — John McClnre, gold. 
California — Allen B. Lenimon, i6 to i free coinage;. 
Colorado — Senator Teller, i6 to r free coinage. 
Connecticut— Sam. Fessendeu, existing gold standard- 
Delaware — J, E. Addicks, gold. 
Florida— J. W. Archibald, gold. 
Georgia — Not settled. Existing standard, 
Idaho — Fred. T. Dn Boise, i6 to i free coinage. 
Illinois — R. W, Patterson, existing gold standard. 
Indiana — General Lew ■\A'allace, gold, 

Iowa — John H. Gear, . 

Kansa.s — C. A. Swinson, . 

Kentucky — Leslie Coombs, gold. 

Louisiana — H. C. Warmouth, sound monej. 

Maine — Amos L. Allen, gold. 

Mar^'land — James A. Gary, gold. 

Massachusetts — Henry Cabot Lodge.existiuggold standard, 

Michigan — Mark S. Brewer, sound money. 

Minnesota — Ex-Governor William R. Merriam, gold. 

Mississippi — Wesley Cray ton, . 

Missouri — Hon. F. G. Niedringhahs, sound money,. 
Montana — Charles Hartman, free coinage.. 
Nebraska — Peter Jensen, existing standard. 
Nevada — A C. Cleveland, i6 to i free coinage. 
New Hampshire — Frank S. Streeter, gold. 
New Jer^e}- — Frank Beigen, gold. 
New York — Edward La uteri )ach, gold. 
North Carolina — AL L. Mott, sound money. 
North Dakota — Alex. Hughes, existing standard- 
Ohio — J. B. Foraker, existing standard. 
Oregon — Charles S. Moore, gold. 
Pennsylvania — Smedley Darlington, gold. 
Rhode Island — Walter A. Read, gold. 
South Carolina — C. M. Wilder, pre.sent standard. 
South Dakota— Gold. 
Tennessee — Not .settled. .Sound money, 
Texas— Not settled. Gold. 
Utah — F. J. Cannon, free silver. 
Vermont— Dr. H. D. Haton, gold. 
Virginia — J. D. Brady, sound money. - 
Washington — A. F. Burleigh, gold. -; 

West Virginia — F M. Reynolds, gold. ' 

Wisconsin — R. M. Lafollette, gold. 
Wyoming — B. F. Fowler, .silver. '] 

'■ Territories. • 

Arizona — , . 

New Mexico — John S. Clark, . 

Oklahoma — , . 

Indian Territory — J. P. Grady, gold. 
District of Columbia — Not settled. Gold. 
Alaska— Not settled. Gold." 



The first action of the committee was to appoint a sub-com- 
mittee of nine members, of which the Chairman should be ex- 
officio one and the Chairman, for the purpose of framing a first 
draft of a platform, to which sub-committee all resolutions of- 
fered should be referred. This sub-committee consisted of Sen- 
ator Lodge, Senator Teller, Governor Merriam, of Minnesota ; 
Mr. Fessenden, of Connecticut ; Governor Warmouth, of Lou- 
isiana ; Mr. Lauterbach, of New York ; Mr. Burleigh, of Wash- 
ington ; Mr. Patterson, of Illinois, and the Chairman. All reso- 
lutions and communications to which I have referred were sub- 
mitted to it when the money question was reached for considera- 
tion. Senator Teller offered the following as a snbstitute for all 
of them : 

" The Republican party favors the use of both gold and sil- 
ver as equal standard mone}', and pled,!:2;es its power to secure the 
free, unrestricted and independent coinage of gold and silver at 
our mints at the ratio of sixteen parts of silver to one of gold." 

After giving consideration to all that was offered, and after 
hearing all that Senator Teller desired to .say in support of his 
proposition, the sub-committee rejected Senator Teller's proposi- 
tion and a number of substitutes that he offered by a vote of 
eight to one, and decided not to accept, in totideni verbis^ 
anything that had been placed before it, but to use, as far as 
it could, the Richards-Hanna resolutions because of their origin, 
making them more concise, however, and supplementing what 
was thus adopted by a more explicit statement with respect to 
the gold standard and omitting the declaration that the tariff 
was ' ' paramount. ' ' Various members of the committee prepared 
drafts intended to meet this purpose. Out of the whole of them 
they finally evolved and adopted the following : 

"The Republican party is unreservedly for sound money. It 
caused the enactment of the law providing for the resumption of 
specie pa^-ments in 1S79 ; since then ever}- dollar has been as 
good as gold. 

"We are unalterably opposed to every measure calculated to 
debase our currency or impair the credit of our country. We are 
therefore opposed to the free coinage of silver except by inter- 
national agreement with the leading commercial Nations of the 
world, and until such agreement can be obtained the existing 
gold standard must be preserved. All our silver and paper cur- 
rency now in circulation must be maintained at parity with gold, 
and we favor all measures designed to maintain inviolably the ob- 



u 



14 

ligafioffs of the I%ited States, and all onr money, \vhether coin 
or paper, at the present standard, the standard of the most en- 
lightened Nations of the world/' 

After this resolntio-n had been adopted in this form, and be- 
fore the adjournment of the sub-committee, it was suggested and 
finally agrreed that it should be amended by inserting after "in- 
ternational-agreement" the words, "which we pledge otirselves 
to promote," as they are now found in the resolution, and thej- 
were accordingly interlined in lead pencil by Senator Lodge. Af- 
terward, when the resolution was reported to the committee, the 
words "now in circulation," occurring as above, were stricken 
out on the motion of Mr. Lafollette of Wisconsin. 

In this amended form the plank was adopted by the commit- 
tee and reported to the convention and by it incorporated in the 
platform. 

The truth is that the framing of this plank was, like the do- 
ing of most such things, not the work of any one man, but a mere 
expression of a common sentiment, in arriving at which all aided 
to whom the duty of fornmlatiiig an expression had been as- 
signed. 

The subject was attracting general attention, and at such a 
time, wnth respect to such a sul)ject, all intelligent and informed 
men will have views and are likely to formulate them, especially 
when called upon to take iinijortant action with regard thereto. 
The great silver debate in the Senate that preceded the convention 
of 1896 had set the whole country to thinking and talking. The 
daily discussions of the newspapers were educating the people, and 
it was everywhere felt by the masses, as well as among the leaders, 
that the platform of 1896 mu-^t contain a more explicit declaration 
against free silver, and in favor of the maintenance of the gold 
standard, than the Republican party had theretofore made ; and 
therefore when the committee met at St. Louis it was found that 
there was practically no difference of opinion as to what should be 
done, but only differences as to the language that should be em- 
ployed. The work of the committee was but a work of phraseol- 
ogy more than anything else, and because there was such a va- 
riety of phrases and statements presented, and so many members 
of the committee to agree, the work was less perfectly done as a 
work of phraseology or rhetoric than it probably would have been 
done had any one of the members of the committee been allowed 



V3 // 

15 

to prepare the plank ou his own responsibility and without inter- 
ference or help. 

But, however that may be, it must be manifest that either 
Mr. Kohlsaat wrote the Richards-Hanna resolutions, which w^ere 
adopted only in part, and that part not very important, and which 
did not explicitly enough declare for a maintenance of the existing 
gold standard to satisfy the committee, or else he must have writ- 
ten, in the name of somebody else, that part of the plank that 
was adopted which was not taken from the Richards-Hanna reso- 
lutions. Every member of the sub- committee knows he did not do, 
and could not have done anything of the kind, for that part of the 
plank was framed, to the personal knowledge of each member 
of the sub-committee, by the sub-committee itself from what 
had been submitted to it by others, and from what all its members 
knew was required to meet public sentiment, and was only what 
all, except Senator Teller, were anxious to say and would have 
said had they acted solely upon their own judgment without the 
help of outside advice or suggestion. 

It is to be hoped that the claims of Mr. Kohlsaat to greatnes.<> 
and the gratitude of his countrymen rest upon something more sub- 
stantial than the story that he was the author of the gold plank of 
the Republican platform of 1S96 ; and it is especially to be hoped 
that his acquiescence, not to say complicity, in the claim that 
has been made for him in this regard is not to be taken as a 
measure of the virtues of that truly ren)arkable man. 

Respectfully, 

J. B. FORAKER. 

Cincinnati, O., September 21, 18 gg. 



spbe:ch 



OK 



SENATOR FORAKER 

AT 

HAMILTON, OHIO, 

EMANCIPATION DAY, 

SEPTEMBKR 22, 1899. 



After talking about the circumstances attending the issuing of the 
Emancipation proclamation, and reading in that connection editorials 
from the Cincinnati Enquirer published the day after the proclamation 
was issued, to show views that were taken of the step at the time, and 
after congratulating the colored people of the United States upon the 
splendid progress they have made in all the pursuits of life, and call- 
ing attention to the heroic services the colored soldiers rendered in the 
recent war. Senator Foraker said : 

In view of all this the colored men of the United States are not only 
entitled to their citizenship, but they are also entitled to protection in 

the enjoyment of it. r i. tt • j 

It is a scandal and a reproach that the Government of the United 
States, for which so many colored men have laid down their lives, 
should be powerless to protect the humblest black man who lives under 
our flag. At this very hour the Government is recruiting two regiments 
of colored men— one of them at Fort Thomas— for service in the Phil- 
ippine Islands. 

The call for this service is being answered by volunteers— brave 
young men who will uphold our flag with the same heroic valor that 
distinguished the glh and loth cavalry and the 24th and 25th infantry 
at San Juan hill last year. When these regiments shall have performed 



6 JO 



2 

this service the survivors of them, full of honor, and some of them, no 
doubt, bearing wounds received in battle, will return to this country 
and to their homes within the States. 

Is it possible that this great, rich, powerful Government that now so 
easily crosses State lines to open recruiting stations and, if need be, 
drafting stations also, will then be powerless to cross those same State 
lines, if necessity should arise, to protect those same men in the enjoy- 
ment of their right to vote, to hold office, and to exercise all the rights 
and duties of citizenship ? 

Is a returned warrior from the Philippines, who may be given a post- 
office as a reward for the services he has rendered, to be murdered be- 
cause he accepts the honor and undertakes to discharge its duties on 
account of the color that God has given him ; and if so, are the State 
lines to rise up so high about the perpetrators of such wickedness that 
the United States Government cannot climb over them to administer 
punishment ? 

Such seems to be the present interpretation of the Constitution, and 
as a result we are constantly reading of lynchings and other crimes that 
discredit the whole nation. 

The moral sense of the American people will not long tolerate such 
abuses, and the time is hastening on when, following emancipation and 
enfranchisement, the flag of our country will mean safety and protection 
to all, both at home and abroad, who look with allegiance upon its 
folds. 

This is one of the great questions pressing upon us, and you, by your 
patience and good citizenship in peace, and your loyalty, devotion, and 
heroism in war, are helping us to work out its just solution. 

Duties of Citizenship. • 

There are some other questions that are pressing upon us, and you, 
as citizens of this Republic, stand charged with the duty of helping to 
solve them. It is just as much your duty as it is mine. You cannot 
intelligently discharge this duty without investigating these questions — 
without discussing them and listening to their discussion. 

In no partisan way, but as one citizen talking to his fellow-citizens 
about a common duty, I shall speak briefly about them. 

I recognize that this is a non-political occasion, and that I should not 
offend against its proprieties by talking to you about political candi- 
dates and advising you to vote for one man or another, but I will have 
to mention political parties in order to state the facts necessary to the 
proper presentation of what I wish to say. 

1896. 

There has been a great deal of history made since 1896. The condi- 
tion of the country then was in striking contrast with its condition now. 

Our industries were then everywhere prostrated. Business was 
everywhere paralyzed, and labor was everywhere idle. Railroads were 
going into the hands of receivers, merchants were making assign- 
ments, and most farmers had been compelled to go in debt, and many 
of them to mortgage their lands. There was distress among all classes 
and in every section. 



Manifestly something was wrong. All conceded that such was the 
case. What the people wanted was a remedy. We were then called 
upon to elect a President. It is not too much to say that it was not a 
choice of men or of parties in that campaign about which the people 
were concerned, except only as men and parties promised relief. 

The contest was between the Democratic and Republican parties. 
Each party had its candidate. Each party had its platform, and each 
offered a solution of our trouble. Each party pointed out a cause for 
the unsatisfactory conditions then obtaining, and both parties promised 
a remedy. 

Money and the Tariff. 

The Democrats attributed our disasters to the gold standard, and pro- 
posed to cure all by the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio 

of i6 to I. 1 r J 

The Republican party said it was not the gold standard, but free trade 
or tariff for revenue only, that was the cause of all our difficulties, and 
that the remedy was to be found in a restoration of the protective 

tariff policy. i, •.-rr 

At that time the conditions were such that men might well ditter as 
to the cause of our trouble and the remedy, and therefore the people 
were ready to listen to the respective claims of the two parties. We 
had an exciting campaign. In the newspapers and on the stump, and 
in every manner possible, the questions involved were debated. 

When the election came the people were well informed. They had 
heard every argument that had been advanced. They had weighed all 
that had been said. They decided that the trouble was not on account 
of our money, but on account of our tariff, and concluded that they 
would try the remedy proposed by the Republican party and therefore 
decided in the words of the Republican platform to maintain the exist- 
ing gold standard, and to re-inaugurate the pohcy of protection to 
American industries and American labor. 

They declared this decision by the election of William McKmley to 
be President, and by choosing a Republican House of Representatives to 
assist him by enacting the necessary legislation. 

Republicans' Promises Fulfilled. 

In discharge of his pledges and the pledges of his party. President 
McKinley at once, upon his inauguration, called an extra session of 
Congress, and asked for a revision on protection lines of our tariff laws, 
and the Congress in fulfillment of these promises gave us the Dmgley 
law and adjourned. 

Before the Members had reached their homes the tide of prosperity 
had set in. Mills, mines, furnaces, factories, foundries, every conceiv- 
able industry at once sprang into activity ; labor was called to employ- 
ment, and the greatest era of prosperity the American people have ever 
known was upon us. It has continued without interruption until now. 
Our railroads have never been so busy ; our labor has never been so 
fully employed or so well paid. Our industries of every character have 
multiplied on every hand. The balances of trade have been m our 
favor without precedent. From one end of the land to the other you 
will search in vain for idleness, for want, for destitution, or for lack of 



6 fO 



prosperity, except only as it is willfully or neg-ligently self-imposed. 
There is at least opportunity everywhere. We have never had such a 
degree of prosperity, nor anything approaching such universal happi- 
ness. 

If anything has been conclusively demonstrated by all this, it is that 
the cause of the disasters of which we complained in 1896 was not the 
so-called demonetization of silver in 1873, and that the remedy for those 
disasters was not the free and unlimited coinage of silver ; but that the 
trouble was the free- trade policies then in force, and the remedy was a 
restoration of the protective policy. 

And yet, notwithstanding all this, we are now again called upon to 
reconsider this same question. 

I do not propose to discuss it, but only to call your attention to these 
indisputable facts, known to all, and there leave it to your consideration. 

The Trusts. 

We have another question, practically a new one. It is the question 
about trusts. We hear it said that the tariff is the mother of them and 
that they are the cause of all sorts of. evils. 

We do have trusts, and some of them as bad as they are represented, 
but they are not the product of the tariff ; and if they were, the tariff^ 
with its attendant prosperity and trusts, is better than free trade and 
idleness, ruin, want, hunger, soup houses and rags. 

That the tariff is not responsible for trusts, is shown by the fact that 
while they have free trade in England, yet they also have more trusts 
in that country than in any other. They had their origin there, and 
there they have had their most complete development. 

But we should distinguish. Not all combinations of capital and 
business are trusts ; not all of them have illegitimate purposes, and not 
all are attended with disadvantageous consequences. On the contrary, 
the great majority of business combinations are legitimate and benefi- 
cial. But whether they are of the one kind or another, they are not 
partisan in character. Trusts are not a Republican institution, enjoyed 
by Republicans alone ; nor a Democratic institution, enjoyed by Demo- 
crats alone ; but they are composed of Democrats and Republicans 
alike ; the men of both parties are engaged in them, and interested in 
their promotion and their protection under the law. They are 
a feature of our modern business conditions with respect to which party 
lines cannot be drawn. Accordingly we find that not only men of all 
parties are in common engaged in creating great combinations of cap- 
ital, but that men of all parties are alike engaged in the condemnation 
of such combinations ; and when we go to the ballot-box in November 
next, men who are interested in trusts, both those which are objection- 
able and those which are not, will alike forget their party interests in 
this respect and vote the Democratic and Republican tickets respectively, 
accordingly as their political aflSliations may dictate. 

Cause of the Trust. 

But passing all this by, these trusts, while restricting competition, are 

yet the result of that same competition, and the natural result of 

natural conditions. They first started in England, because we were 

pressing the manufacturers of that country with our competition in the 



markets of the world to such an extent that they were compelled to 
economize in everj^ way possible to hold their own against us in the 

marts of trade. • -r^ i j 

The same cause that led to the formation of trusts m England 
afterwards led to them in America. The chief purpose of a protective 
tariff has been, first, to develop our own resources to the extent ot 
making ourselves able to supply our own wants. The great question 
has been heretofore whether we would supply our own wants or let 
others supply them. It has been the Republican policy to supply them 
ourselves, and in this behalf we have maintained the protection policy ; 
but all the while we have been pursuing this policy, we have been 
pointing out that after we controlled our own markets, then we could 
ana would compete for the markets of the world. We have_ seen from 
the beginning, and have constantly pointed out, that the time would 
come when our resources would be so far developed and our industries 
so far established, and our labor so far skilled, that we would be able 
not only to supply our own markets, but to have a great surplus to sell 
in the markets of the world, in competition, in those markets, with the 
labor and the capital and the industries of other countries. We have 
now reached that point. We now practically supply our own demands. 
So httle is brought into this country from other countries that it is 
almost impossible, if not quite so, to supply our Government with a 
sufficient revenue by a reasonable taxation of these imports. We do 
not need to go abroad any longer for manufactured iron products, for 
hardware, for agricultural implements, for machinery, for engines, for 
scarcely anything. Except in small part we supply all the demand our 
people make in this regard, and in addition our capacities are such that 
we manufacture large quantities of almost every kind of product .or 
which we can find a sale in other countries. Our capacity to produce 
has far outstripped our capacity to consume. 

Nece;ssity For Their Existence. 

We must, therefore, sell abroad, or we must curtail our production. 
To curtail our production we must restrict the employment of our 
labor and the operation of our mills, mines and factories. If we cannot 
sell, except only to ourselves, millions of capital and hundreds of 
thousands of wage-workers must go unemployed. But to sell abroad 
we must sell in competition with the cheaper labor, and the superior 
advantages, in many respects, of other countries ; and to sell in 
competition with these other countries, under such circumstances, it is 
necessary to economize. 

We could economize by the reduction of wages, but it is contrary to 
sound American ideas and the spirit of free, self-government to develop 
our business at the expense of the brawn and muscle of the land. _ The 
laborer is worthy of his hire and must have it. The great question is, 
therefore, how can we maintain the American standard of wages, the 
highest standard of wages known to the world, and at the same time 
successfully sell our surplus products in competition with the products 
of other peoples. r .u 

In the solution of this problem is to be found the chief cause tor the 
combinations of capital that are complained of. 



6 

By consolidation of capital, plants and management, expenses of various 
kinds are eliminated, and it is made possible to continue the employment 
of our capital and the employment of our resources, and the multipli- 
cation of our wealth ; by a resort to the economies that follow consolida- 
tion, we are enabled to meet the prices of England, Germany and the 
older countries of Europe. 

Therefore, while it is true that some of these combinations have 
many disadvantageous features, yet it is also true that they are not the 
result of a protective tariff, except only as protection has multiplied 
our production beyond our own wants ; and they are not a Republican 
product, except only as Republican policies have brought us a pros- 
perity which, for its full enjoyment, carries us beyond the confines of 
our own territory, and is already leading on to a conquest of the com- 
merce of the world. 

How They Save Laboring Men. 

These consolidations mean loss of position and loss of employment to 
.some cla.sses and some individuals. So did the introduction of the sew- 
ing machine, the cotton gin and every other labor-saving device that 
has ever been invented ; yet the fact remains that but for these consol- 
idations thousands would lose occupation who are now employed in 
producing the surplus manufactures for which we find markets outside 
of our own country. 

But for the advantages we acquire by these consolidations of capital 
and industries, we could not be supplying, as we are to-day, locomo- 
tives to the railroads of England, or be building bridges in the 
Soudan for the British army, in successful competition with the bridge- 
builders of Great Britain. We could not be sending our myriads of pro- 
ducts to South Africa, China, Japan and Australia. These achieve- 
ments, of which we are so justly proud, are made possible by these con- 
ditions, but if it were not for them and the advantages they bring, 
they would not be so. 

In other words, we have come to the place where we must sell abroad 
or restrict production. 

To sell abroad we must compete ; to compete we must economize, and 
to economize we must lower wages or combine. Lower wages we do not 
want and will not have, and therefore we accept the alternative and 
combine. That is the whole story and you can no more stop this course 
of events by legislation, or by election results, or by complaining and 
debating, than you can stop the march of progress. And if you could 
and did stop it, not only capital, but labor also and particularly, would 
at once revolt against the consequences. All we can do, and all 
we should wish to do, is to regulate, restrain, guide and direct these 
great influences and agencies so as to prevent abuse and cause them 
to bring the best possible results to our country and our people. 

The Phii^ippines. 

And now, just when the necessity is upon us to find markets for our 
large surplus products, the way to the best markets of all is opened by 
the annexation of Hawaii and the war with Spain. 

It is not in Europe, but in Asia, where we are to find relief 



Five or six hundred millions of people, chiefly in China, are just now 
being introduced to our civilization. In the near future they will make 
heavy demands on the rest of the world. Russia, France, Germany 
and England are striving for their share of this trade, and we owe it to 
the shops and farmers of this country to secure our fair share also. To 
neglect our opportunities would be stupid folly. 

Considerations of this character must not be overlooked when we 
consider the acquisition of the Philippine Islands. The wisdom of that 
acquisition will be in due time demonstrated, just as in every other case 
of annexation of territory. 

It is true these islands are far distant from us, but they are nearby 
the great markets we must enter. 

It is true that we paid Spain $20,000,000 on account of them, when 
we might have taken them by force, but that was only to reimburse her ' 
for money actually expended for the improvement of harbors and the 
construction of public buildings and other improvements which it would 
have been ungenerous, to say the least, for us to have deprived her 
of, in her hour of helpless humiliation. 

It is true that these islands are inhabited by a heterogeneous popula- 
tion, speaking many different languages, and possessing varying degrees 
of capacity and possibility for civilized government, and that all, good 
and bad, are, according to the terms of the treaty, to pass under our 
jurisdiction ; but it is not true that by mere annexation they are to 
become citizens of the United States, participating in our government 
and competing with our labor. 

On the contrary, it is expressly provided in the treaty that the civil 
and political status of the inhabitants shall be determined by the Con- 
gress, and this provision of the treaty is as much the supreme law of 
the United States as though it were set forth in the Constitution itself, 
for, by the Constitution, it is expressly provided, not that the Consti- 
tution alone shall be the supreme law of the land, but that the Consti- 
tution and the laws enacted in pursuance of the Constitution, and all 
treaties made or to be made, not under the Constitution, but under the 
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. 

In other words, a treaty with a foreign power is, as to all matters with 
which it appropriately deals, an instrument of equal dignity with the 
Constitution ; made so by the Constitution itself. The whole subject is 
therefore entrusted to the American Congress to be dealt with as it may 
see fit ; and the Congress can be safely trusted to so deal with it as to 
fully protect American interests both at home and abroad. And not 
only can the Congress, the direct representatives of the people, be 
trusted to do justice to ourselves, but also to the Filipinos. 

The PhiIvIppink War. 
An unhappy war is now in progress. It is costing us many lives and 
many millions. This is not the time to discuss how we got into it, but 
it should be borne in mind that President McKinley has announced 
that he has no purpose in prosecuting it except only to restore order 
and prepare the way for the establishment in due time of such civil 
government as the Congress may provide. When Congress convenes 
all can be heard, and I have no doubt that wise and just results will be 
reached. In the meantime, so long as the war continues there can be 



o/ 



7 



8 



but two sides to it, and only one is the American side. Where our 
flag and our soldiers are, there must stand the whole American people. 

When the end of the strife comes, if not sooner, it will be made man- 
ifest that our purposes are altogether beneficent. We do not want to 
oppress anybody or deprive anybody of self-government who is capable 
of it. On the contrary to the fullest extent consistent with the main- 
tenance of law and order, and the discharge of our international obliga- 
tions, and as rapidly as possible, theTagalogs, the Vicolls, the Visayans, 
the Moros, the Negritos, and all the other peoples and tribes of that 
archipelago will be advanced in the enjoyment of freedom, liberty, 
independence and self-government under the protection of the Ameri- 
can flag. 

These questions are all of profound importance and profound interest. 
They are worthy of the highest and best thought of the American 
people. Upon their proper solution depend in large measure not only 
our prosperity and happiness, but also the honor and good name of the 
Republic. 



u 




OK 



SENATOR FORAKER 



AT 



Coluimbvis, Ohio, 

OCTOBER 26, 1899. 



Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: There are two reasons at 
least why 1 shall not address you at any great length this evening. 
In the first place, because, as the Chairman has already announced, I 
am to be followed upon this platform by the distinguished Senator 
and gifted orator who comes to us from Michigan to talk to the Re- 
publicans of Ohio, I know that you want to hear Senator Burrows, 
and I, knowing his power on the platform, want the Republicans of 
Ohio to hear him. I shall soon give way in order that he may have 
proper opportunity to address you. But, my fellow-citizens, there is 
another reason why I shall not speak at any very great length to- 
night, and that is, as must be manifest to everyone here, you do not 
need to have anybody speak to you. [Applause.] You are mani- 
festly ready to vote now. [Applause.] What I see here tonight in 
this city of Columbus, and see manifested here in this audience, tells 
me in a most conclusive way that the Republicans of the capital city 
intend to be abreast with the Republicans of all this great State on 
the 7th of November in the election of George K. Nash to be Gov- 
ernor of Ohio. [Renewed cheering and long-continued applause.] 

We are to have another election. It looks like it is all going one 
way. But we must remember that we have three candidates ap- 
pealing to us for our suffrages. I am opposed to two of them. [Laugh- 
ter.] 



VI 



1 am opposed to John R. McLean because he represents something. 
I am opposed to Samuel M. Jones because he does not represent any- 
thing. [Applause.] I am in favor of Judge Nash because he repre- 
sents Republicanism [long-continued cheering], and the continua- 
tion of the Republican party in power in this country means a con- 
tinuation of that prosperity which blesses tonight the whole of this 
great country. [Cries of ''Good!" ''Good!" and more applause.] 

What Mr. McLean represents I do not like ; I never did like it, and 
I never shall like it — he represents Democracy. [Derisive laughter.] 
Haven't we had enough experience, in both State and National af- 
fairs, with this Democratic party? [Cries of "Yes, yes."] We never 
put that party into power in either State or nation that we were not 
anxious for the first election to come at which we might turn it out 
of power again. We have never had two successive State Demo- 
cratic administrations in Ohio since the war, and I doubt if we ever 
have another Democratic administration in Ohio. [Cries of "Good!" 
"Good; give it to them!"] 

A man on a ladder: "How about the city administration?" 

Senator Foraker: "Well, the city administration — I don't know 
much about that, but I haven't any doubt but that it will be taken 
care of, and if there is anything wrong about it, it will be corrected, 
for that is the way the Republicans do." [Great applause.] 

But, my fellow-citizens, while Democracy has always, when in 
power, given us unsatisfactory results, the Republican party has ever 
given us the highest degree of satisfaction. 

I do not intend to consume your time in contrasting the business 
conditions of today with the business conditions we had under Mr. 
Cleveland's administration. You all know, without my reminding 
you, what that contrast is. Every man, woman and child in all this 
land knows that prosperity has been restored to the American peo- 
ple. [Great applause and cries of "Good!" "Good!"] It is not a 
prosperity to be argued about, either. It is a prosperity that every 
man can see and feel and appreciate for himself. Who brought it? 

It didn't come accidentally. It came to the American people be- 
cause the Republican party came into power and reinaugurated Re- 
publican policies in the administration of the National Government. 
[Renewed cheering.] Now, my fellow-citizens, what is it that we 
want to do when we have an election? An election is but the selec- 
tion of an agency to administer the government. If we are doing 
well, do we not want to continue doing well? Do you think it would 
help this prosperity to elect a Democratic Governor of the State of 
Ohio on the 7th of November? Why, my fellow-citizens, everybody 
knows that if we would continue this business prosperity, if we 
would continue to have our labor employed, we must at the ballot 



^ 2- 



box re^ster our approval of what has been done, and at the same 
time our determination not only to have a Republican victory in Ohio 
this year, but a Republican victory in the United States of America 
next year. [Vociferous cheering.] 



MR. JONES. 



Now, I hear there are some Jones men here. Let me appeal to all 
such to ask themselves what could possibly result that would be 
good for them if Mr. Jones should be made aovernor of Ohio? Mr. 
Jones does not represent anybody except only himself. He has no 
legislative ticket; he has no State officials associated with him; he 
does not want even a Lieutenant-Governor. He wants to be IT. 
[Renewed cheering and great laughter.] No matter how good a man 
be may be, no matter how sincere he may be, no matter how good his 
notions may be, if you were to put him into the State House without 
a Legislature, without State officials to assist him, he could not by 
any possibility accomplish anything. To elect such a man Governor 
would be simply to do a vain thing. It would be to defeat a great 
party, without which, and without its organization, there can be no 
successful government. I appeal to you all, therefore, if you would 
maintain our prosperity, if you would indorse our National Adminis- 
tration, there is just one way to do it, and that is by making George 
K. Nash, and nobody else. Governor. [More cheering.] And while 
you are making him Governor, remember the motto inscribed on 
one of the banners that was carried into this hall tonight, which is, 
"Vote the straight ticket from top to bottom." Let us have not only 
an old-fashioned Republican triumph in Ohio this year, but let us 
make it a triumph from the head to the tail of the ticket. [More 
cheering.] 

SOME QUESTIONS. 

There are some great public questions about which the American 
people are at this time concerned. I cannot take the time and will 
not tax your patience to go over them with any elaboration or detail, 
but I want to refer to some of them, and I have been exceedingly 
fortunate, coming into your city tonight, to have indicated to me the 
question which seems to be uppermost in the minds of those who do 
not agree with us. It is seldom that I have had such attention paid 
to me of late years by the Democratic newspapers as I have received 
in the Democratic newspaper of Columbus this afternoon. For the 
last two or three years they have been wasting their energies on 
Hanna's '^dollar coat." That has not seemed to bother him any. 
[Laughter.] He seems to **know his business," all the same [re- 
newed laughter] , but it has made it very easy for me, and for that I 



^>-s 



have a higli appreciation. [Renewed laughter and applause.] As I 
come into this city tonight I have thrust at me, good-naturedly, of 
course, and I have so read it, this afternoon's issue of the Columbus 
Press-Post. [Derisive laughter.] On the first page three or four col- 
umns are given to an exposition of a little difference that occurred 
some months ago between the State Journal and myself, and they 
want to know how^ I like my present affiliation. Well, now^, my fel- 
low-citizens, I may not be altogether pleased with it in some particu- 
lars, but I can say to you in all sincerity that I like it a great deal 
better than I would like affiliation with any Democratic paper on the 
face of the earth. [Thunderous cheering.] 

That question gives me a good text from which to say something. 
What is referred to here is a i>ersonal matter. It should be taken 
care of in a personal w^ay, and, so far as I am concerned, it will be 
taken oare of in that way and in no other. [Renewed applause.] In 
other words, personal matters have no place in the public discussion 
of great national, public, patriotic American questions. [More 
cheering.] I am a Republican [tremendous applause], and I am not 
going to be driven out of the party because some man who does not 
like me happens to belong to it. [Renewed applause.] I will stay 
in it and work with him for a common cause, and when the victorv 
has been won and the common enemy is destroyed, and there is time 
for personal matters, if he wants to resume a consideration of them, 
he knows my address. [Great cheering and laughter.] 

That is all I have to say on that subject. But now I turn the paper 
over to look at the editorial page, and there is a "daisy" [laughter], 
and the editor, knowing that, being in a Democratic paper, I prob- 
ably would never see it, called my attention to it ; sent me a pro^of 
slip to the hotel where I am stopping, and announced in the paper 
that he had done so, coupled with a challenge that I answer, if I 
could, the questions which he has propounded. Two or three of these 
questions are quite pertinent to the political discussion that we have 
come here tonight to engage in, and I will take great pleasure in 
making answer to them. There are twelve of them altogether, but 
from question 3 down to and including question 10, they are all of a 
personal nature. ''Do I think Senator Hanna a better Republican 
than Robert E. McKisson?" That is a sample, and what do I think 
of certain appointments that the President made in the consular and 
diplomatic service, naming them, and so on all the way through, 
and what is my present relation to this, that and the other man? I 
w^ould not stand here and offend this audience, you having assembled 
to hear a discussion of public questions, by answering impertinences 
of that character. [Great applause.] But if the editor really wants 
to kn^w about these matters, if he will call art my hotel I shall be 



S^A 



V 



I)leased to tell bim all I know about tbeni. [More laugbter.] I tell 
vou, mv Denioeratic frieud, vou baveu't any idea bow accommo- 
datiug I can be. [Renewed laugbter.] Tbe eleventh question is 
wbetber or not I baven't entered into a compact witb Senator 
Hauna to tbe effect tbat in consideration of my support of tbe 
Republican party be is to support me for re-electiou to tbe Senate 
of tbe United States? Well, tbat is a modest sort of inquiry [more 
laugbter], and I take great pleasure in telling you tbat over on our 
side of tbe political fence, wbere ''we understand our business," we 
don't do it in tbat way. We don't make compacts of tbat nature. 
We don't make compacts of any kind. If it will be any satisfaction 
to you, my friend, let me tell you I bave never spoken to a buman 
being on tbat subject, unless be bas spoken first upon tbe subject 
to me. And let me tell you, in tbe second place, I am not particu- 
larly "stuck on tbe job'' and am not worrying about keeping it. I 
have business of my own tbat I can attend to to very good advantage, 
and if, wiien tbe time comes for tbe election of a successor to myself, 
the people of Ohio want to send me back, tbej' can do so, and if they 
don't, all well and good. No barm will be done; I will have no griev- 
ance. [Cries of "Good!"] 

THE PHILIPPINES. 

But now, turning from tbat, let me read to you a question tbat is 
pertinent to tbe present political discussion, and which I shall take 
as a text for that which I shall say to you here this evening. 

"Why are you opposing the policy in the Philippines which you 
advocated with particular energy in regard to Cuba?" and, sec- 
ond, "In a speech delivered in the United States Senate, Jan- 
uary 11, 1899, you employed tbe following language: 'No one desires 
to retain the Philippines indefinitely. Tbe President is as much a 
believer in liberty, truth and justice as is the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts. Witb the determination of the ultimate policy respecting 
the Philippines, their own feelings will bave much to do. No one, 
as far as I can learn, is proposing by force and violence to take and 
hold them. I have no more sympathy witb those who talk of making 
war on Aguinaldo than I have witb those who talk of making war 
on Gomez.' And why do you now support the war on Aguinaldo 
which you formerly condemned?" 

SOME MOKE QUESTIONS. 

Now, my fellow-citizens, let us consider this for awhile, and along 
with it this question also, that was banded me by a very serious and 
solemn-looking individual just before the Chairman introduced me: 
"Has a government the right, under any law, human or divine, to 



« 

sell a part of its territory and people to another gOYernment, with or 
witliout the consent of the people so transferred?" Let me answer 
him as I proceed, for I want to be brief about it. It is pretty well 
established that it has. It was so established when France sold the 
Louisiana territory to the United States of America, Thomas Jeffer- 
son being President at the time. [Renewed applause.] We didn't 
ask anybody's consent, but just took it and paid fifteen millions of 
dollars for it. And we established a government over it without 
consulting anybody who lived in the territory, and the President 
appointed a Governor and he appointed a council that was to legis- 
late in conjunction with the Governor for the people in that terri- 
tory, and he so ruled them until Congress took the matter in hand, 
as Congress will in due time take the Philippines in hand and estab- 
lish a government there. The same thing happened, my fellow-citi- 
zens, when Spain, in 1819, sold Florida to the United States. We 
didn't stop to consult anybody down in that territory; we didn't stop 
to find out whether everybody was consenting; and, again, we didn't 
stop to consult anybody when we took Texas, and when we took 
other territory from Mexico, and we didn't stop to consult the inhab- 
itants of Alaska when we purchased that territory from Russia 
through William H. Seward, the great Secretary of State. And so, 
I say, by precedent it is pretty well established that this government 
of ours has the constitutional power and the moral right to acquire 
territory from any other country Avithout stopping to consult and see 
whether it has the consent of evei^ybody occupying that territory. 

But he goes on: ''If so, how does such a transaction 'square' with 
our professed principle of self-government and the inalienable right 
of everyone to equal opportunity in the struggle for life, liberty and 
wealth?" Well, I do not know to what extent I am required to 
"square" all these transactions, but it is enough to say that nobody 
has any right to complain of such a transaction on the ground that 
it is inco'nsistent with the Declaration of Independence, when the 
first great example was set by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the 
Declaration of Independence. [Ti'eraendous cheering.] 

But now, my fellow-citizens, these interrogatories indicate, to my 
mind, what our friends who are opposing us in this contest want to 
hear from me about, and I shall talk at once about the Philippines. 

SHALL WE CONTRACT ? 

I am not surprised that our Democratic friends are opposing ex- 
pansion. That is just like the Democratic party, opposing some- 
thing that has been done. [Great laughter and renewed applause.] 
Why, bless your soul, my Democratic friend, we have already ex- 
panded. We expanded when we ratified the treaty of peace with 



Spain and took a cession of the title of Spain to the Philippine 
Islands. They already belong to this government, and the only ques- 
tion you can raise is whether or not we shall now contract. [Laugh- 
ter.] Shall w^e surrender them? Shall we give them up? Shall the 
President of the United States, to whom the Congress of the United 
States turned over this territory, in the absence fix)m Washington of 
Congress, \\ithdraw the army and navy and haul down the Ameri- 
can flag and retire from the Philippines, and say to Russia and Ger- 
many and other nations, "You can have them?" [Cries of ''No!" 
"No!"] No, a thousand times no, when you come to understand how 
we got to the Philippines. How wa« it? 

HOW WE GOT TO THE PHILIPPINES. 

We didn't start into that war with any reference whatever 
to the Philippine Islands. I venture I am not exaggerating when I 
state that there were not twenty-five men in the Congress of 
the United States who knew there was any such a place as the 
Philippine Archipelago. [Great laughter.] Our action was with 
reference to Cuba oniy. We had a duty with respect to Cuba. Spain 
had cruelly ruled there for hundreds of years, and it became our duty 
to break her sovereignty; to drive her out of there. We started in 
to do that. If she had been content to fight about Cuba alone, that 
would have been the end of the whole matter. We would not have 
looked any further. But Spain, instead of withdrawing on our de- 
mand, answered with a declaration of war, and we were compelled, 
to fix the status of nations and individuals, if nothing else, to answer 
with a countei' declaration of war. That widened the scope of op- 
erations. That made our opemtions very comprehensive; and do 
vou know what one of the first effects of a declaration of war was? 
It was, according to international law, to drive out of neutral ports, 
the world over, our American warships wherever they might be. Ac- 
cording to international law, warships of belligerent nations cannot 
go into neutral ports and remain there except only for supplies, and 
then not more than twenty-four hours, and only for such supplies as 
may be necessary to enable them to reach the nearest home port. 

We have been building up for decades past a commerce in the 
Orient. We have been recognizing that over there are great markets 
for the American people, as well as the rest of the world, to sell and 
trade in. American citizens have been locating there and acquiring 
interests there, and in order that we might protect our interests in 
that far-away part of the earth we had a navy there. Not a very big 
one, but big enough. [Tremendous cheering.] When the declara- 
tion of war came, what was the consequence? That navy of ours, in 
the harbor of Hon Kong, was required, by international law, within 



-^7 

8 

tweuty-foiir lioui's to go out of there. Where was it to go? It could 
not go any place except to the ueai-est home port of the United. 
States, and at that time we had no port nearer than San Francisco, 
We have one nearer to Hong Kong now. [Renewed cheering and 
applausfe.] T*he President cabled the commander of our fleet, a man 
we had scarcely |ieard of then, but all the world has heard of him 
since, to George Dewey [tremendous cheering], Commodore Dewey, 
in command of the United States navy a<t the Asiatic station [ap- 
plause] — cabled to him, I am not giving his language, but his 
thoughts, that war had been declared between Spain and the United 
States, and that inasmuch as he had to at once come home, abandon- 
ing all American interests and letting them go without protection, 
or do something else, he had better do something else [applause], 
and he pointed out to hini that there were some Spanish possessions 
in that part of the world, the Philippine Archipelago, and that there 
was a S})anish fleet at Manila, and directed him to go there and cap- 
ture or destroy it. He gave him an alternative, and he exercised his 
option; he destroyed. [Applause.] That cable went to Mm on the 
23d of Apiiil. Just a week later, on the 1st day of May, a cablegram 
was received by the President from Dewey, saying: "I got your 
cablegram. I sailed at once. I got here Sunday morning, fonnd the 
Spanish fleet at daybreak, immediately attacked and destroyed it." 
[Great cheering.] The whole Spanish fleet, as his report showed, 
had been sent to join the Maine on the bottom of the sea. [Ap- 
plause.] A^'ell, now. you ought to have been in Washington then to 
have seen Senator Burrows rush out into the corridor to look at the 
map to find out where the Philippino Islands were. [Great laugh- 
ter.] 

The Senator says to me, from his seat in tlie rear, that when he 
got to the map he had to look over my shoulder. [Renewed laughter.] 
I exi>ect that is true, for I confess I was greatly interested in Spanish 
islands about that time. We were all looking out for them; but as 
to the Philippines, we were surprised to find that there were not 
only two or three or four or five or a dozen of them, but that there 
were twelve or fourteen hundred of them, perhaps; enongh to give 
twenty or thirty to each State and Territory in the Union and have 
islands left. [Applause.] 

Well, my fellow-citizens, we were pretty well satisfied with that 
beginning of the war, for at the first sti'oke Dewey not only sank the 
whole Spanish fleet, but he shivered every timber in the Spanish 
ship of state at Madrid. The world said that ''was a great victory, 
but it was only an accident. Couldn't happen again. Nothing like 
it ever happened in the history of the world." But, my fellow-citizens, 
only four or five weeks later it did happen again. When Sampson and 



9 

Schley sent the other Spanish fleet to also join the Maine [renewed 
cheering], and then the Spaniards and all the world found out that 
that was siimply a Fay the United States navy has of doing its busi- 
ness; that we not only had fine ships and splendid officers, but that 
we had behind the guns the best men in all the world. [Great and 
prolonged cheering.] 

But now, to return to the Philippines. When Dewey reported 
that victory we were, of course, very much pleased, but it was 
something nobody had anticipated, and nobody had intelligently 
mappeti out a programme of further proceedings in that 
quarter of the globe. As I have already intimated, we didn't know 
much about the Philippine Islands, didn't know how many there 
were, didn't know about the soil of these islands, their material re- 
sources, whether they were valuable acquisitions or not, and espe- 
cially we didn't know anything about the people there, and we didn't 
have time just then to investigate that subject, and so the President 
said to Dewey : ''Staj' there and keep everything in s-tatu quo until 
we get rid of the war, and then we will give the matter further at- 
tention.'' 

PEACE NEGOTIATIONS. 

Well, we were pretty busy with the war for about iseventy or 
eighty days longer, when Spain suddenly sued for peace. We had 
sunk all her ships w^e could get at. With 16,000 men we had cap- 
tured at Santiago 24,000, and she had enough of it, and wanted to 
know on what kind of terms we would settle. We were ready to 
accommodate her in that respect. We didn't want war with her in 
the first place, but when we had to have it, we pushed it with the 
energy that I have indicated, yet welcomed an opportunity of end- 
ing it upon honorable terms to this country. Peace commissioners 
were appointed. They got together. We had started into war on 
account of Cuba. Spain said: "I will surrender Cuba to you." The 
United States stiid: "No, we don't want you to surrender Cuba to 
us, but we want you to withdraw from Cuba, as we demanded at 
the outset," and she withdrew. We said we had promised the Cu- 
bans their independence and self-government, and we were going 
to redeem that pledge, and in the near future it will be redeemed. 
[Great cheering.] Well, then, the next question was something else. 
The great primary pui'pose of the war had been accomplished. It is 
according to usage in such cases thiat the conquering nation demands 
an indemnity from the conquered. We said to Spain : *'You put us 
to war; you made it necessary; you have compelled us to spend a 
great deal of money; you didn't shed much of our blood, but you 
compelled us to«pend our money, and we are entitled to indemnity." 



'1 

10 

Hpainsaid: ''We cannot pay. We have no ships, we have no money 
and we have no credit, but we have got a little real estate. [Laugh- 
ter.] That is all there is left." Not particularly needing her money, 
and knowing from long experience that she was a bad neighbor, we 
acted upon this suggestion and took title from her of all her posses- 
sions in the West Indies, Porto Rico, the Isle of Pines and a number 
of other small islands over which the Spanish flag was flying; we 
look down the Spanish flag and put up the Stars and Stripes. [Ap- 
plause.] Then we said we had Hawaii, and Midway Island, 1,200 
miles beyond, in the Pacific, and it would suit our convenience and 
purposes to have (luam, of the Ladrones, another long step toward 
the far East, and we took that.[A])}ilause.] Then we came to the Phil- 
ippines and took them. ^Vc had been so busy we had not had time to 
look into the subject thoroughly when the treaty came up for con- 
sideration. It was at this time, on the 11th day of January, 1899, 
that I made the speech from which the Press-Post takes the quota- 
tion I h^ave read. Xow, Avhat was it I said? I was speaking of the 
l)ur})ose of the United States in acquiring the Philippine Islands, and 
what I said then I have said before everv audience, in substance 
and effect, to which I have spoken in this campaign, and what I said 
in the Senate of the United States then, the President of the United 
States has in effect repeated and reiterated over and over again. I 
said in that speech — they have mot quoted all I said on that subject, 
and they have not quoted it accurately, either, but possibly they have 
(juoted from some newspaper instead of the Record — what I said was 
in answer to statements on the other side that we were proposing to 
rule there despotically with force of arms. I said in answer to 
that that I didn't know of anybody, from the President down to his 
humblest follower, who had an}' such intention, but, on the contrary, 
the whole story was that the fortunes of war had carried us there, 
and we found when we came to the Philippines and looked into the 
conditions of the Filipinos that they had been suffering as the Cu- 
bans had for 327 years under the tyrannous rule of the Spanish gov- 
ernment. We said we had commenced the war in the interest of 
humanity, and that we could not afford to end it with an act of in- 
humanitv, and that it would be an act of inhumanitv to leave the 
Filipinos subject to the sovereignty of Spain, and, therefore, we said, 
we will put Spain not only out of the Western hemisphere, but out 
of the Philippine Archipelago also. [Applause.] W^e will say to the 
suffering in Cuba, "Go free!" and we will say to the suffering in the 
Philippines, ''Spain shall no longer dominate and tyrannize over 
you." I do not believe there was a Democrat in the Senate who dis- 
sented, and after this election is over every Democrat in Ohio will 
be claiming tJiat he favored all that. But, however that mav be, the 



11 

first ppoposition was, therefore, that Spain should go. But if Spain 
went; what was to happen? The Filipino rein-esentatives themsehes 
said, as reported at the time: ''We want you to drive ^^t Spf^^' ^^ 
whek you have driven out Spain we don't want the United States 
to go away and leave us unprotected. If you do, Germany aiid Kus- 
sia and France and England will pounce down upon us and divide 
us up among themselves, and our last estate will be worse than our 

'we listened to that appeal, and said Spain should go out and no- 
body else should come in. We would take title from Spain to the 
Philippine Islands, thus barring out Spain and all other countries 
and confining the settlement of all differences to the Filipinos amd 
the United States. W^ith all this in mind, I said-coming to the quo- 
tation that has beeu mad(>-that it was not our purpose in so taking 
control of them to subject them or hold them indefinitely under the 
jurisdiction of this government, but only to extend the authority and 
the jurisdictiou of this government over them, so that under that 
protection, and with our help, order might be restored and they might 
be led out of the darkness and the bondage under which they had 
been for centuries into the isunllight of freedom and liberty and ulti- 
mate self-government just as soon as we found that they were capa- 
ble of enjoying it. Now, my fellow-citizens, that was my purpose 
when I voted to ratify that treaty, and I understood it was the pur- 
pose of the President of the United States. He has repeatedly so ex- 
pressed himself in substance, and since that time he has given fur- 
ther expression on the subject, to which I now desire to call your at- 
tention, as sfliowing better than anything else that can be said what 
the purposes of our government are with respect to the Philippines. 
In his ispeech at Minneapolis, a few days ago, tlie President said^ 

"The future of these new possessions is in the keeping of the Con- 
gress, and Congress is the servant of the people. That they will be 
retained under the benign sovereignty of the United States, I do not 
permit myself to doubt. That they will prove a rieh and invaluable 
heritage, I feel assured. That Congress will provide for them a 
government which will bring blessings, which will promote their ma- 
terial interests as well as advance their people in the path of civili- 
zation and intelligence, I confidently believe. Tliey will not be gov- 
erned as vassals or serfs or slaves— they will be given a government 
of liberty, regulated by law, honestly administered, without oppras- 
sion or exaction, taxation without tyranny, justice without bribe, 
education without distinction or social conditions, freedom of reli- 
gious worship and protection in life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
ness." 



31 



12 



THE WAR IN THE PHILIPPINES. 



My fellow-citizens, that is the language of the President of the 
United States. Is it not language to which every patriotic American, 
without regard to political affiliation, can subscribe? [Renewed 
cheering.] ''Ah, but," says the inquirer, ''you have got into war, and 
vou are fighting the Filipinos." Yes, that is true, and I am sorry for 
it. It is an unhappy war, and the time may come when it will be 
proper to inquire how we got into it. It may then be shown that great 
blame should attach to some one, but, my fellow-citizens, that cannot 
be done now. As long as we have a firing line and a flag in the Phil- 
ippines it is the duty of every American citizen to stand by the 
Commander-in-Chief [more cheering], and I know that this great 
country will, for no matter what those in opposition may see fit to 
say. you cannot persuade the American people that either President 
McKinley or the Congress of the United States will desire to deal 
with those people otherwise than jus.tly and generously. [Renewed 
shouting.] But before we can deal with them we must get into some 
kind of peaceable relation with them, either by force of arms or by 
action of the President, or, when it convenes, by action of Congress. 
Jt won't be very long, I hope, until that relation is established and 
then the whole world will be amazed at the generosity of the Ameri- 
can people and what we will do to lift them up to a higher and bet- 
ter plane. [Long-continued cheering.] 

THE FUTURE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 

The great work of the immediate future, my fellow-citizens, with 
respect to the Philippines is to establish there a government of the 
United States under which there can be order and under which we 
can give civil government to all the peoples of those islands. That 
is no easy matter. Ordinarily when a man speaks of the Filipinos 
he talks as though he thought they were a homogeneous people; all 
alike. While "aJll coons may look alike in this country,'" they don't 
over in that. [Great laughter.] There are some sixty or eighty dif- 
ferent peoples and tribes in those islands, each having a different 
language, each having in some important particulars a different civ- 
ilization, each having different institutions of government, some hav- 
ing only the simplest tribal relations. There are the Tagalos, of 
which people Aguinaldo is one. They number about one and one- 
half or two millions. They are a pretty tolerably capable people; 
far more so than is agreeable to u® under existing conditions. 
[Laughter.] But immediately south of them, on the same island, 
are the Vicolls, with a different language, a different literature, in 
so far as they have any, and different institutions in many respects. 



13 

North of them are a number of other tribes and peoples, all differing 
in the same way; all on the same island. Then there are the Visay- 
ans, the Negritos and the Moros and so on. We must establish a 
government for all the different and varying peoples, if we stay 
there, and we are going to stay. [More applause.] 

That is a difficult task. It requires the very highest order of 
statesmanship to execute it successfully and satisfactorily. To suc- 
ceed, we want wisdom, we want prudence, we want experience, we 
want the confidence of the people in the men who perform that duty. 
Do you feel it would be a wise thing to turn over a job like that to 
the Democratic party? [Great laughter.] Do you think a party 
capable of satisfactorily performing a great duty of that nature that 
does not yet know that *'16 to 1" is as dead as Julius Caesar? [Tre- 
mendous laughter and applause.] 

Now, mv fellow-citizens, when vou come to vote on the 7th of No- 
vember, recollect that while we have been girdling the earth with 
our acquisitions of territory and filling the world with the splendor 
of our power, we have also been taking upon us some grave respon- 
sibilities — responsibilities that some party must meet. You must 
say which. Can yoiu think of a party more capable of successfully 
dealing with these great questions than the one that has dealt with 
them with so much credit and honor and glory to the republic from 
their inception down to this moment? [Tremendous cheering.] 

DESIRABILITY OF THE PHILIPPINES. 

Now, just one word more. We did not go to war for the Philip- 
pines, as I said; we didn't take jurisdiction over them with the idea 
of making conquest or reducing them to a state of vassalage and 
compelling unwilling allegiance to the American flag, but we came 
by them in such a way that we had a right, when called upon to con- 
sider whether or not we should surrender them, to consider also 
whether tlhey would be of any advantage to us, and the more we 
studied that question the more it seemed as though, under all the 
circumstances, having special reference to the future, they were lo- 
cated at just exactly the right spot. [Laughter.] We had no port 
in all that countrv. Thev remedied that diflficultv. When in the 
future flhe United States goes to war with some other nation, and 
shall happen to have a fleet at Hong Kong or Singapore, or any other 
place over there, it won't have to return to San Francisco. It can as- 
semble at Manila [applause], forever sacred, because of its historic 
memories, to the American people. [Renewed cheering.] 

Now, why are those islands desirable? Let me tell you in just a 
moment, and then I shall give way to Senator Burrows, for I have 
talked much longer than I intended. 



14 

OUR FUTURE COMMERCE. 

We have been telling you all these years, since the Republican 
party first came into power, that we have been favoring a protective 
tariff policy in order that we might develop our industries, employ 
our labor and supply our home markets, but we have told you at the 
same time that there would come a time when, pursuing that policy, 
we would not only supply our own home market, but have a great 
surplus to seill in the markets of the world. That time has now 
come. We are today producing in the shops of this country 30 to 40 
per cent, more of manufactured products than we can sell at home. 
We must find a market for this surplus, for if we do not sell it we 
must curtail our production, we must shut down our shops, we must 
cut down the pay rolls, we must invest less capital and pay out less 
wages. Where will we sell them? The great markets of the future, 
my fellow-citizens, are in the Orient. In China and Japan and in 
those far Eastern countries and islands there are some seven or 
eight hundred millions of people just now being introduced to the 
civilization of the world. As they come into the enjoyment of civ- 
ilization they learn to want the products of civilization, and the 
world must supply them. Japan has been trading with the world 
only a few years, and yet her foreign commerce already amounts in 
the aggregate to more than |100,000,000 annually. With China and 
her 600,000,000 of people we are just beginning to trade. Tre- 
mendous are the possibilities of commerce there. All other na- 
tions appreciate this fact and are acting accordingly — Russia in 
particular. For generations she has been striving to get through the 
Bosphorus and out to the sea. Failing in that, she has been trying 
to break through Afghanistan and down throug'h India to the sea. 
Failing in that, she has resorted to a great national railway through 
Siberia, a country that a few years ago was thought only a stupen- 
dous field of enow and ice. She is now building it. No sooner will 
this be accomplished than she will make all the world feel her com- 
mercial power. She has already secured from China a cession of the 
province of Manchuria, a large territory by itself, rich in all kinds of 
resources, and she is at work to connect her railway with Port 
Arthur, where she will have an open port and be connected with the 
ocean world. And while Russia has been doing this Germany and 
France have been securing territorial lodgments and cessions in 
China, and not only have these countries been making these acquisi- 
tions of territory, but it has been found that they have been estab- 
lishing "spheres of influence" and negotiating treaties with China 
and the various provinces, under which they practically barred out 
of these markets all the other nations except only themselves. It was 
when this became manifest that England, ever alert to protect her 



15 

oomiuerce in every part of the globe, sent her warships to Chemulpo 
and issued proclamation that the ports of China should be open to 
all or open to none. 

England, in taking this action, was but protecting the natural 
rights of her people to share in this great commerce. What England 
did, the United States must also do. It would be little short of a 
crime against the manufacturers and wage-workers and fanners of 
this country for us to permit ourselves to be denied our fair share 
of all this coming trade. [Applause.] Where but a few years ago 
we sold practically no agncultural products of any kind, we sold 
millions in the aggregate last year, and already Japan and China, 
Siam and Australia are making heavy demands upon us in common 
with the rest of the world for the products of our shops and factories 
and mills, but what they are doing today in this respect is only the 
beginning. Their demands will multiply over and over again with 
the fast coming years of the future. We would not bar out any 
other country, but we must see to it that we are not barred out our- 
selves. [Applause.] The Republican party comprehends and ap- 
preciates not only that it is the duty of those who administer the 
government so to legislate and guide and direct as to secure to the 
American people our full share of rights and privileges in that part 
of the world, but also that the Philippine Islands are located in ex- 
actly the right place to constitute a most advantageous base of op- 
erations in securing and maintaining our full share of commercial 
rights and privileges. With these islands in our possession we will 
not only benefit the people by the beneficent institutions we will 
establish for them, but we will immeasurably benefit ourselves by 
the predominance of our influence in that quarter of the globe. To 
secure the highest measure of success in the solution of these great 
problems, the best possible political agency must be selected. Only 
that party which experience has shown is possessed of approved 
wisdom, statesmanship and particularly comprehensive and pro- 
gressive Americanship can be safely entrusted with this great work. 
The achievements of the Republican party are a sure guarantee of its 
fitness and capacity to triumphantly work out in all these matters 
those results which will advance and enhance the happiness and 
prosperity of the American people and the glory and honor of the 
American Republic. [Long-continued applause.] 



w 






■'-J- 



\ 



i 



iminm 

mmmmi 



UBRARV OF CONGRESS 



013 763 317 6 



*■' ■lif" 



ipiiiiil 




